Price v Giroux

[*1] Price v Giroux 2007 NY Slip Op 50894(U) [15 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on April 27, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., LIPPMAN and OWEN, JJ
2006-1521 W C.

Gloria Price, Respondent,

against

Jeffrey M. Giroux, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Brian Hansbury, J.), entered March 14, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,820.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover for damages to her vehicle as a result of a collision with defendant's vehicle. After a nonjury trial, the court awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,820. The determination of liability in this case involves issues of credibility which are for the trier of fact as it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses (see McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]; Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]) and its decision should not
be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that it could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, supra). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see UCCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). As there is support in the record for the court's determination on the issue of liability, there is no basis to disturb it.

It should be noted that the plaintiff's two estimates sufficiently complied with the requirements of section 1804 of the Uniform City Court Act so as to warrant their admission into [*2]evidence. In addition, it is apparent from the amount awarded that the lower court did not include in its award any items which were not related to the accident.

Accordingly, substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law and the determination of the lower court is affirmed (UCCA 1807).

Rudolph, P.J., Lippman and Owen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 27, 2007