Ward v Nok Auto Repairing, Inc.

[*1] Ward v Nok Auto Repairing, Inc. 2008 NY Slip Op 51111(U) [19 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on May 27, 2008 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 27, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
2007-818 K C.

Stewart R. Ward, Appellant,

against

Nok Auto Repairing, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), dated March 14, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $425.59 on its counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover $5,000 for the loss of the use of his car allegedly caused by defendant, a car repair shop, which refused to return plaintiff's car until plaintiff paid the full bill for repairs. Defendant counterclaimed for the balance of the unpaid repairs of $914.42, plus storage fees, for a total of $4,989. After trial, the court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant on its
counterclaim the principal sum of $425.59, representing the cost to repair those items which were not reasonably expected to be included in the flat fee for repair of the engine initially agreed to and paid for by plaintiff.
Upon a review of the record, we find that 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 125, 126 [2000]). The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon [*2]appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as the court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses
(see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). Inasmuch as the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.