Neri v Sclafani

[*1] Neri v Sclafani 2009 NY Slip Op 52229(U) [25 Misc 3d 134(A)] Decided on October 23, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 23, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MOLIA, J.P., NICOLAI and TANENBAUM, JJ
2008-875 S C.

Robyn Neri, Respondent,

against

Francine A. Sclafani and MARIO A. SCLAFANI, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered November 30, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $700.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a $700 payment that she had made to defendants pursuant to the parties' oral agreement for an apartment rental. At trial, plaintiff testified that defendants had materially breached the agreement by failing to deliver the premises for occupancy on the date promised, which had forced plaintiff to obtain alternate accommodations. Plaintiff produced a receipt for the payment, which defendant Francine A. Sclafani admitted she had signed. Defendants testified that the apartment was ready for occupancy on the date promised and that plaintiff reneged on the agreement by failing to take possession. After trial, the District Court found for plaintiff.

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]), especially where the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (id.). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Here, the court was required to weigh conflicting [*2]testimony as to whether defendants delivered the premises as promised. As we cannot say that plaintiff's testimony failed to support the court's determination, we conclude that the court's determination provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Molia, J.P., and Nicolai, J., concur.

Tanenbaum, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: October 23, 2009