Davis-Taylor v Jensen

[*1] Davis-Taylor v Jensen 2009 NY Slip Op 52453(U) [25 Misc 3d 141(A)] Decided on December 1, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 1, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-424 S C.

Myrtice Davis-Taylor, Appellant,

against

Joseph R. Jensen, Defendant, -and- MARGARET A. PATTI, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated November 3, 2008. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action as against defendant Margaret A. Patti.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover for property damage sustained to her vehicle in a collision with a vehicle driven by defendant Joseph R. Jensen and owned by defendant Margaret A. Patti. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found that the evidence adduced at trial established a nonpermissive use of the vehicle by defendant Jensen. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed the action as against defendant Patti.

The determination of the trier of fact should not be disturbed on appeal unless its conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially where, as here, the determination turns upon the credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Ellington, 27 AD3d 567, 568 [2006]). This standard applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant Patti rebutted the presumption of permissive use afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. Consequently, in dismissing the action as against defendant Patti, the District Court rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, [*2]1807). Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 01, 2009