D'Amico v JFA Holding Corp.

[*1] D'Amico v JFA Holding Corp. 2008 NY Slip Op 52647(U) [22 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on November 26, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 26, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and MOLIA, JJ
2007-1334 RO C.

Michael D'Amico, Respondent,

against

JFA Holding Corp., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Airmont, Rockland County (Daniel R. Goldman, J.), entered December 5, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,567.80.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action for wrongful eviction (see RPAPL 853), plaintiff was awarded treble damages in the principal sum of $1,567.80 after a nonjury trial. We find that the trial court rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 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 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 trial court as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as such court had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording it 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]). Although defendant's president testified that [*2]plaintiff was not locked out of the premises, the lower court accepted plaintiff's testimony with respect to the events, which was supported by a police report as well as by the testimony of plaintiff's wife. As there is ample support in the record for the lower court's finding that plaintiff was locked out as of May 21, 2002, there is no reason to disturb said determination. Since plaintiff had already paid use and occupancy for May 2002, he was entitled to recover treble damages for the portion thereof which was for the period beginning May 21, 2002 (RPAPL 853; see Kerner v Epstein, 269 NY 443 [1936]).

We note that defendant did not effectively raise the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations in the court below. We find defendant's other contentions raised on appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 26, 2008