Karim v Castro

[*1] Karim v Castro 2007 NY Slip Op 51493(U) [16 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on July 12, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 12, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-1420 N C.

Hamidul Karim, Appellant,

against

Carol Castro, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Howard S. Miller, J.), entered May 31, 2005. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's action.

Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover the sum of $4,140.36 for damages arising out of a collision between his vehicle and defendant's vehicle. After trial, the lower court dismissed plaintiff's action on the ground that plaintiff was solely responsible for the accident. The resolution of the instant case hinged upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses. The determination of issues of credibility 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 given the limited standard of review (see UDCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

A review of the testimony indicates that there is support in the record for the court's findings. In view of the foregoing, substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law and the judgment of the lower court, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed (UDCA 1804, 1807).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 12, 2007