Brickman v Fraih

Annotate this Case
[*1] Brickman v Fraih 2008 NY Slip Op 51424(U) [20 Misc 3d 130(A)] Decided on July 1, 2008 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 1, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2007-1106 W C.

Miriam Brickman and Ronald Senator, Respondents,

against

Raef Fraih, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Charles D. Wood, J.), entered January 8, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,079.


Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, wherein plaintiffs seek to recover for damage to their personal property, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 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]). The issue at trial was essentially one of credibility, and it cannot be said that the court's resolution of said issue was so clearly erroneous as to warrant reversal (see Dourado v Jordan, 2002 NY Slip Op 40394[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2002]).

We note that although defendant claims on appeal that the court below was arbitrary and unfair, the record does not reveal any evidence of bias on the part of the trial court. Moreover, with respect to the photographs and documents annexed to the appellate briefs, they may not be considered by this court, which is limited to reviewing matters contained in the settled record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Rudolph, P.J., taking no part.
Decision Date: July 1, 2008

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.