Ford v Lasch

[*1] Ford v Lasch 2009 NY Slip Op 50965(U) [23 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on May 12, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 12, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2007-1825 D C.

Elaine Ford, Respondent,

against

Edward G. Lasch d/b/a JAYCES, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Dover, Dutchess County (John Fusco, J.), entered September 13, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,048.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover unpaid rent and fumigation costs. Defendant, a ground-floor commercial tenant in a premises otherwise residentially occupied, withheld from plaintiff, his landlord, a portion of a month's rent, alleging the loss of business owing to a cockroach infestation. Defendant's lease
required defendant annually to fumigate the commercial premises. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court concluded that defendant failed to prove the fact and amount of the alleged loss of business, that plaintiff proved her fumigation costs, and that defendant's violation of the lease provision was the proximate cause of plaintiff's damages. The instant appeal by defendant 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 Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with [*2]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]).

The record supports plaintiff's claims that a portion of the rent was wrongly withheld and that defendant neglected his contractual duty to fumigate his premises. Under the circumstances presented, we find that the Justice Court's award of the principal sum of $1,048 in favor of plaintiff provided 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]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 12, 2009