O. Benjamin Okeke, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Domenick Napoletano, Brooklyn, NY, for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated June 3, 2015, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants Bruce L. Stein, Public Administrator of Kings, temporary administrator of the estate of Alice Parker Gordon, also known as Ales Parker Gordon, and Cecil D. Worrell, administrator of the estate of James Gordon, and against him dismissing the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action in the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony" ( DePaula v. State of New York, 82 A.D.3d 827, 827, 918 N.Y.S.2d 206, quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 ; see Samuel Yu v. Fortuna Design & Constr., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 732, 966 N.Y.S.2d 106 ). Similarly, "[w]here the trial court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed to the trial court's credibility determinations"
( Bennett v. Atomic Prods. Corp., 132 A.D.3d 928, 930, 18 N.Y.S.3d 443 ; see Neiss v. Fried, 127 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 9 N.Y.S.3d 76 ). Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the evidence adduced at trial supports the Supreme Court's determination dismissing the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action in the complaint. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the court's determination.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is not properly before this Court.