Clachar v Soodoo

[*1] Clachar v Soodoo 2012 NY Slip Op 52420(U) Decided on December 21, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and LaSALLE, JJ
2011-3289 N C.

Trevorlyn Clachar, Appellant, Dr.

against

Kirk Soodoo, D.M.D., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered August 31, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover from defendant, her former dentist, the sum of $2,600 for dental bridgework which defendant allegedly failed to complete. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action.

The determination of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed on 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]). "A trial court's resolution of questions of credibility is particularly within its domain and should not be disturbed on appeal if supported by the record" (Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564, 564 [1992]; see Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). In the instant case, the District Court's judgment turned on its resolution of issues of credibility and rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807). [*2]

We note that this court cannot consider statements which are dehors the record on appeal (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 21, 2012