Gorey v M & R Carpentry

[*1] Gorey v M & R Carpentry 2012 NY Slip Op 50160(U) Decided on January 24, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : LaCAVA, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ
2010-2970 D C. -x

Christina Gorey, Appellant,

against

M & R Carpentry and RICHARD YEAPLE, Respondents. -x

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (Katherine A. Moloney, J.), entered May 13, 2010. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $653.98.

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

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for an alleged overpayment for the renovation of her kitchen. Defendants interposed a counterclaim.

After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $653.98 and dismissed the counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy from so much of the judgment as only awarded her the sum of $653.98 on her cause of action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided 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 a 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 a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade,
178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

LaCava, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 24, 2012