Restrepo v Sierra

[*1] Restrepo v Sierra 2006 NY Slip Op 52372(U) [14 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on December 8, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 8, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-107 Q C.

CARLOS RESTREPO, Respondent,

against

JOHN SIERRA, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan, J.), entered September 22, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,975.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

It has been observed that "[o]n a bench trial, 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, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses" (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, said standard "applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part, which is commanded to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law' [CCA 1804]" (id.).

In this small claims action, it is our view that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the court below were reached upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). The record supports a finding
that the work done by plaintiff was pursuant to an oral agreement between the parties that plaintiff would be paid $100 a day for his work. Accordingly, the trial court
properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according
to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: December 8, 2006