Valenza v Epoxy Tech, Inc.

[*1] Valenza v Epoxy Tech, Inc. 2007 NY Slip Op 51169(U) [15 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on June 5, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 5, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-1032 S C.

Michele Valenza and John Valenza, Respondents,

against

Epoxy Tech, Inc. d/b/a Epoxy Tech Flooring, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered September 27, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action to recover for damages caused by defendant's defective resurfacing of plaintiffs' driveway, we find that the trial court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair
interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in small claims court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as the court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This is especially true when findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses [*2](Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]). In addition, the court below did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that plaintiffs' witness qualified to testify as an expert (see generally Werner v Sun Oil Co., 65 NY2d 839 [1985]). We find that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 5, 2007