| Khan v Kaieteur Constr., Inc. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05958 [120 AD3d 770] |
| August 27, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Hamid Khan, Appellant, v KaieteurConstruction, Inc., et al., Respondents. |
Gabriel O. Amene, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Ragano & Ragano, Ozone Park, N.Y. (John J. Lawless of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffappeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Yablon, Ct. Atty. Ref.),entered September 4, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court dated July 13,2012, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissingthe complaint, awarding the defendants the principal sum of $47,000 on theircounterclaim to recover damages for breach of contract, and declaring that thedefendants' lien on the subject real property in the sum of $47,000 is valid.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In reviewing a determination rendered after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court isas broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it findswarranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had theadvantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (see NorthernWestchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499[1983]; Novair Mech. Corp. vUniversal Mgt. & Contr. Corp., 81 AD3d 909, 909-910 [2011]; Yonkers Contr. Co., Inc. v RomanoEnters. of N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 629 [2007]).
Here, the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff failed to meet his burdenof establishing his causes of action alleging breach of contract and fraud is warranted bythe facts, and we find no reason to disturb it (see Tornheim v Kohn, 31 AD3d 748 [2006]; Zanani vSavad, 217 AD2d 696, 697 [1995]).
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants were entitledto recover damages from the plaintiff on their counterclaim alleging breach of contract.The defendants showed, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the plaintiffbreached his contract with the defendants in failing to pay the balance due thereon (see Metropolitan Switch Bd. Mfg.Co., Inc. v B & G Elec. Contrs., Div. of B & G Indus., Inc., 96 AD3d725, 726 [2012]; cf. Cohn vTitan Drilling Corp., 79 AD3d 925, 926 [2010]). In addition, the SupremeCourt's determination that the defendants had a valid lien on the plaintiff's interest incertain real property is warranted by the facts, and we find no reason to disturbit.
[*2] The plaintiff's remaining contentions areeither unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Dickerson, J.P., Leventhal,Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.