| Came Realty, LLC v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 00103 [36 AD3d 575] |
| January 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Came Realty, LLC, Respondent-Appellant, v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1]
Scheinert & Kobb, LLC, Nanuet, N.Y. (Joel L. Scheinert of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated June 14, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of damages, and upon a decision of the same court dated June 7, 2005, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $420,000, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from (1) the decision, and (2) so much of the judgment as awarded it the principal sum of only $420,000.
Ordered that the cross appeal from the decision dated June 7, 2005 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Upon review of the findings of fact rendered after a nonjury trial, "[i]f the credible evidence in the record indicates that a different finding from that of the trial court is not unreasonable, this Court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony as well as [*2]conflicting inferences which may be drawn therefrom," and then "render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the Trial Judge has the advantage of viewing the witnesses" (Matter of Fasano v State of New York, 113 AD2d 885, 888 [1985]; see We're Assoc. Co. v Rodin Sportswear, 288 AD2d 465 [2001]; U.S. No. 1 Laffey Real Estate v Hanna, 215 AD2d 552 [1995]). We find no reason to disturb the trial court's valuation of the subject property, which fell within the range of the competing appraisals (see Rockland Dev. Assoc. v State of New York, 15 AD3d 381 [2005]; Matter of 495 Cent. Ave. Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, 237 AD2d 606 [1997]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.