Jeudy v High Point Furniture Corp.

[*1] Jeudy v High Point Furniture Corp. 2009 NY Slip Op 51035(U) [23 Misc 3d 142(A)] Decided on May 22, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 22, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2008-1271 S C.

Linda Jeudy, Appellant,

against

High Point Furniture Corp., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (Lawrence Donohue, J.), entered March 25, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover the purchase price of a set of furniture ordered from defendant, alleging that the set, when delivered, was both damaged and incomplete. At the nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that after defendant had delivered the set, she had informed defendant of the missing pieces and the damaged condition, and that defendant had agreed to pick up the set and to refund her money (see generally UCC 2-601; 2-711), which it had failed to do. Defendant's witnesses, disputing plaintiff's version of what transpired, testified that although there was a missing piece, defendant had ordered another one, and it also had taken back the damaged items for repair. When defendant had called to arrange for delivery of the missing piece and repaired items, plaintiff would not respond to the calls.

In a decision after trial, the District Court accepted defendant's version of the events and dismissed the action on the ground that defendant had made an attempt to cure the non-conforming tender (see generally UCC 2-508) and plaintiff had prevented it from doing so.

The standard of review on appeal of a small claims judgment is whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807). A small claims judgment may not be reversed absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the court's conclusions, or that the court's determination is otherwise [*2]so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620 [1986]; see also Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167 [1976]).

Resolution of issues of credibility is for the trier of fact, since it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses (see
McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]; Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]), and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that said determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens, 160 AD2d 544). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UDCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

In the instant case, the trial court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807), as the record is sufficient to support its conclusions. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Tanenbaum J.P., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 22, 2009