GOLDING v. GOTTESMAN (2007)

In an action to recover the proceeds of certain loans, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered April 11, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $194,065.47.

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 ․ 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' ” (Tornheim v. Kohn, 31 A.D.3d 748, 818 N.Y.S.2d 491, quoting, Universal Leasing Servs. v. Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 A.D.2d 829, 830, 565 N.Y.S.2d 199;  see 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;  Kaywood Props. Ltd. v. Glover, 34 A.D.3d 645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 91).   The evidence established that the plaintiff made a series of loans to the defendant in order to save the defendant's house from foreclosure, first by a bank and then by the City of New Rochelle, that the defendant promised to repay the loans, and that the defendant failed to do so (see Langenbach v. Renna, 255 A.D.2d 366, 679 N.Y.S.2d 692;  see generally Wallach v. Dryfoos, 140 App.Div. 438, 440, 125 N.Y.S. 305).   The defendant did not prove that the plaintiff's tender of money was a gift (see Langenbach v. Renna, supra;  Matter of Carroll, 100 A.D.2d 337, 338-339, 474 N.Y.S.2d 340).   Accordingly, the trial court's determination is supported by the record, and we find no reason to disturb it (see Kahan v. Sulaymanov, 24 A.D.3d 612, 807 N.Y.S.2d 111;  Bucci v. Bucci, 231 A.D.2d 665, 647 N.Y.S.2d 978).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.