Burton v Hansen

[*1] Burton v Hansen 2009 NY Slip Op 51566(U) [24 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on July 14, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 14, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2007-1347 RI C.

David Burton, Appellant,

against

Paul Hansen, Respondent. PAUL HANSEN, Third-Party Plaintiff, ROSSVILLE GREENS, LLC and BLOOMINGDALE GREENS, Third-Party Defendants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered October 5, 2006. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover for damage allegedly caused to his septic system as a result of work performed by defendant in defendant's backyard. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action, noting, among other things, that defendant had never agreed to allow plaintiff to use defendant's backyard as part of plaintiff's septic system. We find that the Civil Court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

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 greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). In the instant matter, the Civil Court's findings of fact are amply supported by the record and, thus, will not be disturbed. We note that while plaintiff contends that defendant violated the Building Code by not being properly licensed to perform the work or having a permit to perform the work in defendant's backyard, assuming arguendo that the work performed by defendant required the foregoing, the failure to have met said requirements did not, in the [*2]circumstances presented, render defendant liable to plaintiff for damages. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 14, 2009