Rodriguez v Johnson

[*1] Rodriguez v Johnson 2009 NY Slip Op 51379(U) [24 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on June 29, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 29, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and NICOLAI, JJ
2008-1360 OR C.

Santos Rodriguez, Respondent,

against

Brad Johnson, Defendant, -and- SPLUT, INC. d/b/a SERVPRO OF ORANGE COUNTY, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Port Jervis, Orange County (Victoria B. Campbell, J.), entered February 7, 2008. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,690.99 as against defendant Splut, Inc. d/b/a Servpro of Orange County.

Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

After a nonjury trial in this small claims action to recover for damage to several items of personal property, the City Court awarded plaintiff judgment, insofar as appealed from, as against defendant Splut, Inc. d/b/a Servpro of Orange County in the principal sum of $3,690.99. Upon a review of the record, we find that the City Court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]; Pat Hartly, Inc. v American Reciprocal Insurers, 21 AD2d 761 [1964]; Dubiner's Bootery, Inc. v General Outdoor Advertising Co., 10 AD2d 923 [1960]; Reis v Long Island R. Co., 88 App Div 611 [1903]; Maurer v Grimm, 84 App Div 575 [1903]; see also Peters v Berkeley, 219 App Div 261 [1927]; Taft v Smith, Gray & Co., 76 Misc 283 [1912]). In a bench trial, 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 [*2]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, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record supports the City Court's determination, we affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Nicolai, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 29, 2009