Cohen v Shachar

[*1] Cohen v Shachar 2013 NY Slip Op 52160(U) Decided on December 17, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 17, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and TOLBERT, JJ
.

Bert Cohen, Appellant,

against

Stacey Shachar, Respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County (Rolf M. Thorsen, J.), entered April 13, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of only $466.42.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $2,719.30 for property damage sustained to his vehicle when it collided at an intersection with a vehicle driven by defendant. The collision occurred when plaintiff's car, which had been heading west, stopped at a flashing red traffic light at an intersection and then made a left turn onto North Main Street, to proceed south, and was struck by defendant's vehicle, which had been traveling south on North Main Street. It was undisputed that southbound traffic on North Main Street approaching the intersection was controlled by a flashing yellow traffic light. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $466.42, upon finding that plaintiff was 80% at fault in causing the accident and defendant was 20% at fault. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy. 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 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.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: December 17, 2013