Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Samuel POPKOFF, Appellant, v. EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff brought this action, sounding in breach of contract, to recover the principal sum of $25,000 based upon defendant's “[f]ailure to return [his] property.” At a nonjury trial, plaintiff presented evidence that he had entered into a contract with defendant to rent a storage unit in defendant's facility to store his deceased parents' “valuable” items and that, after Hurricane Sandy had flooded the facility, defendant had improperly discarded his stored items, that were “salvageable,” into a dumpster. Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint, finding, among other things, that plaintiff had failed to establish that defendant had breached the subject contract and that, in any event, plaintiff had failed to establish his damages, to wit, the value of the items that he alleged had improperly been disposed of by defendant.
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Morrone v. Costagliola, 151 AD3d 1055, 1055-1056 [2017]; Sub10k, Inc. v. National Mktg. Servs., Ltd., 31 AD3d 744, 744 [2006] ).
Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the Civil Court that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of establishing defendant's breach of the contract and his actual damages was warranted by the facts. Plaintiff's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for our review.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2014-2847 RI C
Decided: June 29, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)