Lewis-Rasbury v Thermo-Tite Windows

[*1] Lewis-Rasbury v Thermo-Tite Windows 2009 NY Slip Op 52179(U) [25 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on October 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 20, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ
2008-1903 W C.

Cynthia Lewis-Rasbury, Respondent,

against

Thermo-Tite Windows, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Mary Anne Scatteretico-Naber, J.), entered March 26, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover for defendant's defective installation of windows. After a nonjury trial, the City Court found in favor of plaintiff, awarding her the principal sum of $3,000. Upon a review of the record, we find that the trial 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]).

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). 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]). We find that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: October 20, 2009