Stewart Senter Inc. v Romain

[*1] Stewart Senter Inc. v Romain 2006 NY Slip Op 52322(U) [13 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on November 29, 2006 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 29, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ANGIOLILLO, J.P., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-585 N C.

STEWART SENTER INC. d/b/a AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION DESIGN, Respondent,

against

MONIQUE ROMAIN, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Adam H. Moser, J.), entered December 22, 2004. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,800 and dismissed the counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this commercial claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the unpaid balance on a contract pursuant to which plaintiff installed an automatic sprinkler system on defendant's property. Defendant alleged that the system was defective and counterclaimed for damages for the cost of a new system, removal of her current system, refund of her down payment, plus costs, attorney's fees and interest. After a nonjury trial, the court below awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,800 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the court below properly rendered its judgment and provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1807-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Defendant failed to present any proof that the installed system was defective and failed to prove any damages on her counterclaim in that she did not provide paid bills or two estimates detailing the cost of a new system and removal of her current system.

The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Perez v Garcia, 304 AD2d 544 [2003]).
This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of [*2]the court (see generally Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Angiolillo, J.P., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 29, 2006