Kowinsky v Mishiyev

[*1] Kowinsky v Mishiyev 2012 NY Slip Op 52177(U) Decided on November 26, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 26, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ
2010-2940 OR C.

Phyllis B. Kowinsky, Appellant, Nov 26, 2012

against

Boris Mishiyev, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Port Jervis, Orange County (Victoria B. Campbell, J.), entered March 18, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the cost of allegedly defective furniture she had purchased from defendant. After a nonjury trial, the City Court found that plaintiff had failed to prove that the furniture was defective, and dismissed the action.

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]). 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 their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). 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]).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the City Court's dismissal of the [*2]action. We therefore conclude that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 26, 2012