Rad v Water

[*1] Rad v Water 2012 NY Slip Op 51082(U) Decided on June 11, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 11, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2011-2150 W C.

HOSHI RAD, Respondent,

against

NANCY WATER, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Richard F. Sweeney, J.), entered September 9, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,156.97.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the cost to repair the damage which defendant allegedly had caused to plaintiff's vehicle. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court found that plaintiff had established that defendant damaged his vehicle, and, thus, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,156.97, the amount plaintiff had paid to repair the damage, as indicated on a paid invoice.

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 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate [*2]the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). As the record supports the City Court's determination, we find that substantial justice was provided to the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012