Rivera v LeRoy

[*1] Rivera v LeRoy 2012 NY Slip Op 52272(U) Decided on December 7, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 7, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : LaCAVA, J.P., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ
2011-2415 W C.

Juan Rivera, Respondent,

against

Ana M. LeRoy, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Tarrytown, Westchester County (Kyle C. McGovern, J.), entered June 16, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000 and implicitly dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action for breach of contract to recover the principal sum of $3,000, representing the cost of a boiler and its installation on commercial property owned by defendant. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that she had not authorized plaintiff to remove the existing boiler and to purchase and install a new one, and that, in fact, she had purchased another boiler. After a nonjury trial, a judgment was entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000 and implicitly dismissing defendant's counterclaim.

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 (UJCA 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 [*2]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 a 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]). As the record supports the Justice Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

We note that we do not consider those factual assertions and documents annexed to defendant's brief which were not presented to the trial court, as they are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

LaCava, J.P., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 07, 2012