D'Antuono v MJCA Professional Engineering Servs.

[*1] D'Antuono v MJCA Professional Engineering Servs. 2009 NY Slip Op 50812(U) [23 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on April 24, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 24, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ
2008-1369 S C.

Frank J. D'Antuono and TIFFANY M. D'ANTUONO, Respondents,

against

MJCA Professional Engineering Services and JOSEPH F. BOLOS, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered April 29, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,100.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced the instant small claims action to obtain a refund of $2,100 they had paid defendants for the preparation of plans for the expansion of their home. Defendants are an engineering company and its principal. At the nonjury trial, differing testimony was presented concerning the agreed-upon price of the plans, the scope of the work covered by the parties' agreement, and the adequacy of the plans prepared by defendants. Following trial, the District Court concluded that the agreed-upon price for the plans was $2,100. Finding that the plans had no value to plaintiffs in the form in which they were prepared, the court held that plaintiffs were entitled to recovery of the full $2,100 they had paid, plus costs. This appeal by defendants ensued.

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 e.g. 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 e.g. Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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 e.g. Vizzari v State of [*2]New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]).

There is ample support in the record for the finding of the District Court, based on the credibility of the witnesses, that the agreed-upon price for the plans was $2,100, but that by reason of the deficiencies in the plans, they had no value to plaintiff and, thus, defendant was not entitled to retain the payments he had received for them. Consequently, we find that in awarding judgment in favor of plaintiff, the District Court rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126), and its judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 24, 2009