Central Transmissions & Automotive, Inc. v Glenties Leasing Corp.

[*1] Central Transmissions & Automotive, Inc. v Glenties Leasing Corp. 2005 NY Slip Op 51955(U) [10 Misc 3d 130(A)] Decided on December 1, 2005 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 1, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: DECEMBER 1, 2005 February 2005 Term Suarez, P.J., Davis, Gangel-Jacob, JJ.


Central Transmissions and Automotive, Inc. N.Y County Clerk's No. 570629/04 Plaintiff-Appellant, Calendar No. 04-403/404

against

Glenties Leasing Corp., Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims

Part of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Maryann Brigantti-
Hughes, J.), entered on or about February 24, 2004, after trial,
in favor of defendant dismissing the action. Defendant cross-
appeals from so much of the aforesaid judgment as dismissed its
counterclaim.
PER CURIAM:

Judgment entered on or about February 24, 2004 (Maryann
Brigantti-Hughes, J.), affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action based upon
defendant's failure to pay for work performed on three automobile [*2]
transmissions immediately prior to plaintiff's sale of its
automotive repair business. Defendant presented credible evidence, including the testimony of one of plaintiff's former employees and of a principal of the new automobile
repair company, that plaintiff failed to properly repair defendant's transmissions. The record and the ends of "substantial justice" (CCA 1807) support the post-trial dismissal of plaintiff's action. Particularly in the context of small claims cases, the decision of the fact-finding court is entitled to deference where it rests in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]).

Defendant's cross appeal, not having been briefed, is deemed abandoned.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: December 01, 2005