AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

MICHAEL SAPERSTEIN, Appellant, v. ADAM LEWENBERG et al., Respondents.

A judgment rendered after a bench trial should not be disturbed unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions cannot be supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly where the credibility of witnesses is central to the case ( Nightingale Rest. Corp. v. Shak Food Corp., 155 AD2d 297, lv denied 76 NY2d 702). Review of the evidence reveals no basis for disturbing the court's findings. Plaintiff's version is, at best, equivocal as to whether there was a termination resulting from the parties' conduct. His attempt to draw support for this position from defendants' successful effort to mitigate damages by reletting the premises is wholly illogical. In fact, plaintiff's counsel had written to advise that defendant should relet in order to mitigate damages.

Dismissal of defendants' counterclaims is implicit in the court's determination.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SAPERSTEIN v. LEWENBERG
(Oct 14, 2004)