DECISION ORDER
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, of course, 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. Moreover, the trial court's determination will generally not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence" (Universal Leasing Servs. v. Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 A.D.2d 829, 830).
A claim that a law enforcement official used excessive force during the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of the person is to be analyzed under the "objective reasonableness" standard of the Fourth Amendment (US Const, 4th Amend; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388; see Ostrander v. State of New York, 289 A.D.2d 463, 464). The determination of an excessive force claim requires an analysis of the facts of the particular case, including "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he [or she] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight" ( Graham v. Connor, supra at 396).
Our review of the record herein reveals that the Supreme Court's determination was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence and should not be disturbed.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.