Opinion
March 26, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).
In this action based upon instruments for the payment of money only, we find no merit to defendant's contention, rejected by the trial court, that the notes purportedly evidencing defendant's obligation had been materially altered to add defendant as a guarantor. Giving due deference to the court's credibility determinations ( see, Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495), which, in any event, were supported by the record, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence since it was not inconsistent with fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Cushman Wakefield v. 214 E. 49th St. Corp., 218 A.D.2d 464, 467-468, appeal dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 951; see also, Greenberg v. Behlen, 220 A.D.2d 720, 720-721). Specifically, we find no error in the court's rejection of the testimony of defendant's handwriting expert, especially since the expert, although claiming that the disputed notations upon the promissory notes in issue did not comport fully with samples supposedly provided by defendant, could not verify that the samples used by him in his comparison were in fact those of defendant.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.