Bennetto v Gati

[*1] Bennetto v Gati 2015 NY Slip Op 50614(U) Decided on April 16, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 16, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ.
2013-2225 Q C

Moshe Bennetto, Appellant,

against

William Gati, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry L. Love, J.), entered February 6, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the $1,000 retainer fee that he paid defendant, an architect, to perform services, which services were allegedly not rendered. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he paid defendant a $1,000 retainer fee, and that defendant, claiming the retainer was nonrefundable, refused to refund the fee. Defendant testified that he had conducted research, investigated zoning regulations and FEMA flood zones and determined that plaintiff's land development project was not feasible. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court, after trial, dismissed the action.

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).

As the judgment in this case provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807]), the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: April 16, 2015