Somma v Brown

[*1] Somma v Brown 2009 NY Slip Op 50968(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2008-1182 OR C.

Salvatore Somma and BARBARA SOMMA, Appellants,

against

Michael Brown and M & B CARPENTRY, INC., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Crawford, Orange County (Michael B. Heckman, J.), entered February 14, 2008. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiffs' cause of action.

Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover damages in the amount of $2,600 for breach of contract. Following a nonjury trial, the Justice Court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiffs' cause of action.

Our review on appeal of a small claims judgment is limited to determining whether substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1807). Even if the appellate court differs with the small claims court on an arguable point of fact or law, the appellate court may not reverse, absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the trial court's conclusions or that they were so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Salvia v Dyer, 21 Misc 3d 140[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52359[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the Justice Court to dismiss plaintiffs' cause of action is supported by a fair reading of the evidence.

We note that the issue of possible bias on the part of the Justice Court was raised for the first time on appeal, and is dehors the record. This court is limited to reviewing matters contained in the settled record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]). Accordingly, the [*2]judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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