Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"`Where, as here, a case is tried without a jury, our power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, bearing in mind . . . that due regard must be given to the decision of the Trial Judge who was in a position to assess the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses'" ( Tornheim v Kohn, 31 AD3d 748, quoting Universal Leasing Servs. v Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 AD2d 829, 830; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499; Kaywood Props., Ltd. v Glover, 34 AD3d 645). The evidence established that the plaintiff made a series of loans to the defendant in order to save the defendant's house from foreclosure, first by a bank and then by the City of New Rochelle, that the defendant promised to repay the loans, and that the defendant failed to do so ( see Langenbach v Renna, 255 AD2d 366; see generally Wallach v Dryfoos, 140 App Div 438, 440). The defendant did not prove that the plaintiff's tender of money was a gift ( see Langenbach v Renna, supra; Matter of Carroll, 100 AD2d 337, 338-339). Accordingly, the trial court's determination is supported by the record, and we find no reason to disturb it ( see Kahan v Sulaymanov, 24 AD3d 612; Bucci v Bucci, 231 AD2d 665).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.