| Katz v Gangemi |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01954 [60 AD3d 819] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael Katz et al., Respondents, v John Gangemi et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Flamhaft Levy Hirsch & Rendeiro, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Marvin Hirsch of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover the unpaid balances of two loans, the defendants appeal from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated September 24, 2007, which,after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sums of $11,470and $80,000.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover the unpaid balances of two loans allegedlymade to the defendants. The plaintiff Marcia Katz is the mother of the defendant Stacey BaronGangemi. At a nonjury trial, Marcia Katz testified that the plaintiffs loaned the defendants thesums of $25,000 in December 2001 to assist them in buying a new home, of which $11,470 hadnot been repaid, and that the plaintiffs loaned the defendants $80,000 in February 2003 to assistthem with certain legal troubles, of which none had been repaid. The plaintiffs also entered intoevidence, inter alia, a document acknowledging the loans and setting forth the terms ofrepayment, which Marcia Katz testified was drafted and signed by Stacey Baron Gangemi inFebruary 2003. By contrast, neither of the defendants testified at trial, even though Stacey BaronGangemi had personal knowledge of essentially every material issue in the case. The SupremeCourt found in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, and awarded the plaintiffsjudgment in the principal sums of $11,470 and $80,000. We affirm.[*2]
Upon review of a determination rendered after a nonjurytrial, this Court's authority is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render thejudgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the trialjudge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see LeVine v Catskill Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 57 AD3d624 [2008]; Candela v ByronChem. Co., Inc., 54 AD3d 306 [2008]). Here, we find no basis to disturb the SupremeCourt's determination on appeal.
Further, the Supreme Court properly drew the strongest inference against the defendants thatthe opposing evidence permitted based on the failure of Stacey Baron Gangemi to testify at trial(see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73 [1995]; Brown v City of New York, 50 AD3d937 [2008]; Farrell v Labarbera, 181 AD2d 715 [1992]).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florio andMiller, JJ., concur.