Persaud v Prashad

[*1] Persaud v Prashad 2005 NY Slip Op 52098(U) [10 Misc 3d 134(A)] Decided on December 2, 2005 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 2, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2005-117 S C

RAJNARINE and SURUJDAI PERSAUD, Respondents,

against

Rishi Prashad and RISA MANAGEMENT CORP., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered September 28, 2004. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,000.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action against defendants to recover, inter alia, the $4,000 paid to defendants to legalize an existing front porch on plaintiffs' [*2]
property. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs only paid $3,000 and that, although they took a number of years to perform the work required for payment, they nevertheless were entitled to full payment according to the parties' contract. The record establishes that while defendants did perform some work in an attempt to legalize the porch, defendants did not legalize the porch. In addition, defendants did not attempt to complete the contract until the eve of trial.

The court's determination that plaintiffs paid $4,000 to defendants was an issue of credibility which is entitled to great deference in a small claims action and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous (see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706 [1997]; Makas v Every, 224 AD2d 793 [1996]). The court's conclusion that defendants are liable to plaintiffs is supported by the record and rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1807). [*3]

Since plaintiffs did not cross appeal on the ground of inadequacy, we leave undisturbed the award in favor of plaintiffs in the principal sum of $2,000.
Decision Date: December 02, 2005