Preziosi v Tremsky

[*1] Preziosi v Tremsky 2004 NY Slip Op 51430(U) Decided on November 19, 2004 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 19, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-79 N C

ROBERT J. PREZIOSI, Appellant,

against

THEA H. TREMSKY, Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from a small claims judgment of the District Court, Nassau County (H. Miller, J.), entered July 9, 2003, in favor of the defendant dismissing the action.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover for property damage to his vehicle as a result of an automobile accident. At trial, both parties offered completely different versions as to how the accident occurred. In addition, both offered photographs of the damage sustained to their respective vehicles. Ultimately, the court credited defendant's version of the facts.

A review of the record indicates that substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807). The deference which an appellate court normally accords to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Even if we differed with the small claims court on an arguable finding of fact, we may not reverse absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the court's conclusions or that they are otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Dourado v Jordan, 2002 NY Slip Op 40394 [U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Here, there was an adequate basis in the record to support the determination of the trial court that the accident was a result of plaintiff's unsafe lane change (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [a], [d]) [*2]and that he was, therefore, not entitled to recover for the damages sustained by his vehicle.
Decision Date: November 19, 2004