Vatelier v Golding

[*1] Vatelier v Golding 2017 NY Slip Op 51214(U) Decided on September 22, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 22, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.
570440/16

Thierry Vatelier, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Kevin Golding and Golding & Associates, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendants appeal from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered August 11, 2014, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding him damages in the principal sum of $2,400, and dismissing defendants' counterclaim.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered August 11, 2014, modified to the extent of vacating plaintiff's recovery against defendant Kevin Golding; as modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's recovery of a portion of the retainer fee initially advanced to defendant law firm was consistent with the record and the ends of "substantial justice" (CCA 1804, 1807), as it reflected the trial court's adequately supported factual determination as to the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by the firm. Particularly in the context of small claims cases, the decision of the fact-finding court is entitled to deference where, as here, it rests in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]).

As stipulated by the parties at trial, the Court correctly amended the caption to reflect that the proper defendant is Golding & Associates (see CCA 1814[c]), and not Kevin Golding, individually. Having so stipulated, defendants are not aggrieved by the amendment and may not now challenge it on appeal (see CPLR 5511). In accordance with the stipulation, we modify to the extent of vacating so much of the judgment as awarded plaintiff a recovery against the individual defendant.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 22, 2017