Crooks v Hyundai

[*1] Crooks v Hyundai 2017 NY Slip Op 50462(U) Decided on April 12, 2017 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 12, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.
570681/16

Nichol Crooks, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Star Hyundai, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered on or about November 23, 2015, after trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered on or about November 23, 2015, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court applied the appropriate rules and principles of substantive law and accomplished "substantial justice" in awarding judgment in defendant's favor dismissing the action (CCA 1804, 1807). A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the finding that since plaintiff purchased a used automobile with 87,000 miles in February 2014, the Used Car Lemon Law did not require defendant car dealer to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of the March 2015 repairs (see General Business Law § 198-b[b][1][c]). Particularly in the context of small claims cases, the decision of the fact-finding court is entitled to deference where it rests in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: April 12, 2017