Puck Puck LLC v LP N. Am. Inc.

[*1] Puck Puck LLC v LP N. Am. Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 50182(U) [26 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on February 4, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 4, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570477/09.

Puck Puck LLC, Plaintiff-

against

LP North America Inc. a/k/a Paper North America Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about January 26, 2009, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $4,000.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about January 26, 2009, affirmed, without costs.

Applying the narrow review standard in this small claims action (see CCA 1807), and giving due deference to the trial court's findings of fact and credibility determinations (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), we sustain the judgment in plaintiff's favor. The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the trial court's finding that "defendant bookkeeping service did a terrible and unprofessional job[,] ... mischarachterized deposits, overlooked deposits, failed to reconcile books as promised, mis-imput[ted] invoices, etc." Additionally, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mid-trial request for an adjournment after defendant previously indicated its readiness for trial (see Null v Trade-Winds Envtl. Restoration, Inc., 10 Misc 3d 146[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50154[U] [2006]). With respect to defendant's contention regarding the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of the contract defendant attempted to move into evidence, the record discloses no evidentiary error, and clearly none warranting reversal under the narrow review standard here applicable (see CCA 1807; see generally Ellis v Collegetown Plaza, LLC, 301 AD2d 758, 759 [2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: February 04, 2010