Opinion
Argued December 20, 1999
January 31, 2000
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of warranty, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Robbins, J.H.O.), dated June 12, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the respondents and against it dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents.
Twomey, Latham, Shea Kelley, Riverhead, N.Y. (Christopher Kelley of counsel), for appellant.
Cullen and Dykman, Garden City, N.Y. (Peter J. Mastaglio of counsel), for respondents Southampton Associates, Rosouth and Southampton Commons; William A. Sheeckutz, East Meadow, N.Y., for third third-party defendants (one brief filed).
THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of warranty claiming, inter alia, that the sponsor of a condominium complex, the respondent Southampton Associates (hereinafter the sponsor), breached its express and implied warranties to deliver to its condominium homeowners an operable and working sewage treatment plant that would meet permit criteria established by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for nitrogen removal. The sponsor argued that the plant's failure was not caused by design defects, as the plaintiff alleged, but rather, by poor operation. After a nonjury trial, the court found that the evidence offered by the sponsor was more credible and persuasive than the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and judgment was entered in favor of the respondents.
The determination of a court after a nonjury trial will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that its conclusions could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744 ; Great Neck Obstetrics Gynecology v. Bellucci, 218 A.D.2d 782 ; Tarantino v. Vanguard Leasing Co., 187 A.D.2d 422 ; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129 ). We find that the trial court's determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
SULLIVAN, J.P., LUCIANO, H. MILLER, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.