Izrailov v Soliman

[*1] Izrailov v Soliman 2013 NY Slip Op 50903(U) Decided on May 22, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 22, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: LaSALLE, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ
2012-557 S C.

Amnun Izrailov, Respondent,

against

Nader Soliman, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered September 23, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,499.35 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for repairs plaintiff had made to defendant's car. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging, in essence, that plaintiff's work had been substandard and/or that defendant had already paid for all of the repairs. After a nonjury trial, the District Court, finding that plaintiff's testimony was credible and defendant's was not, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,499.35 and dismissed 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 (UDCA 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 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]).

In this case, defendant's various asserted defenses — that he did not authorize the work, that the work was substandard, and that he had already paid for the work — were contradictory and support the trial court's finding as to defendant's lack of credibility. Similarly, the fact that defendant failed to bring to court the receipts that he claimed establish his cost to have the vehicle fixed again also supports the court's credibility finding.

In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. [*2]

LaSalle, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 22, 2013