[*1]
Mazza v Mazza
2005 NY Slip Op 51476(U) [9 Misc 3d 127(A)]
Decided on September 16, 2005
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on September 16, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: September 16, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PATTERSON, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ.
2004-1300 RI C

Gaetano Mazza, a/k/a THOMAS G. MAZZA, Respondent,

against

Thomas Mazza and STEPHANIE DeVITO, Appellants, -and- TIFFANY DeVITO and ASHLEY MAZZA, "JOHN DOE" and "JANE DOE", Occupants.


Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (John S. Lansden, J.), entered April 21, 2004. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded possession to petitioner in a licensee summary proceeding.


Final judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Occupants' sole defense in this licensee summary proceeding was a claim to possession based on an alleged lease and purchase option agreement executed by landlord and occupant Stephanie DeVito. However, landlord denied signing the lease and the notary, the only witness the court found credible, testified that while landlord was present, she witnessed the signature only of occupant Stephanie DeVito and explicitly denied witnessing landlord's signature. In addition to the court's own observation that the signatures "revealed different inks as well as a [*2]substance having been placed or spilled over [landlord's] alleged signature making it blurry," occupants admitted they could not prove payment of any of the sums required by the lease upon its execution.

On a bench trial, where the issues turn largely on the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and on documentary evidence, "the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence" (George A. Fuller
Co. v Kensington-Johnson Corp., 234 AD2d 265, 266 [1996]; see also Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1990]). Applying this standard, the final judgment of the Civil Court should be affirmed.
Decision Date: September 16, 2005