Liczbik v Suzuki 112

[*1] Liczbik v Suzuki 112 2006 NY Slip Op 52314(U) [13 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on November 28, 2006 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through December 6, 2006; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 28, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: ANGIOLILLO, J.P., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-1031 S C.

JADWIGA LICZBIK and JOHN Z. LICZBIK, Appellants,

against

SUZUKI 112, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered January 31, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action against an automobile dealership, Suzuki 112, plaintiffs Jadwiga Liczbik and John Z. Liczbik seek $5,000, alleging fraud when Mrs. Liczbik signed the automobile sales contract. Plaintiffs contend they did not see the instructions, "Do not sign this contract before you read it," and that defendant's salesman was aware they had not read the contract and did not explain its terms to
them. At trial, after reviewing the terms of the agreement in detail with the parties and calculating the payments, the court found no evidence of fraud and dismissed the action.

In a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (Wilson v Mersier, 12 Misc 3d 134[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51199[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Applying these principles here, we are of the view that substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807). [*2]

Angiolillo, J.P., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 28, 2006