The following excerpt is from Close-Up Int'l, Inc. v. Berov, No. 10-4967-cv (2nd Cir. 2012):
Berov argues that the district court's prior orders were not clear and unambiguous; that his noncompliance was not proven clearly and convincingly; and that he had made diligent efforts to comply. In reviewing factual findings for clear error, we do not "second-guess either the trial court's credibility assessments or its choice between permissible competing inferences." Ceraso v. Motiva Enters., 326 F.3d 303, 316 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42, 52 (2d Cir. 2011) ("It is within the province of the district court as the trier of fact to decide whose testimony should be credited.").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.