Zawadi v Running

[*1] Zawadi v Running 2015 NY Slip Op 50223(U) Decided on February 24, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 24, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ.
2013-1733 K C

Kiane Zawadi, Respondent,

against

Taana Running, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Wavny Toussaint, J.), entered May 15, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,850.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, representing medical expenses he had incurred as a result of an assault by defendant.

At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that when he and defendant, among others, had appeared for an arbitration hearing, an argument escalated and defendant struck him on the head with her bag, causing him to sustain injuries and to seek medical treatment. Defendant denied hitting plaintiff and testified that she had been trying to shield herself. The Civil Court, expressly crediting plaintiff's testimony, awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $2,850. On appeal, defendant challenges the Civil Court's determination on the issue of liability, arguing that the court improperly considered an out-of-court written statement of someone who had witnessed the incident. In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Upon a review of the record, we find that any error in the court's allowing proof of the out-of-court written statement was harmless in light of the court's credibility finding, which is supported by the trial record in its entirety, and the lack of resulting prejudice to defendant (see Wecker v Franco, 57 AD3d 974 [2008]). As the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: February 24, 2015