Ir v Wynter

[*1] Ir v Wynter 2007 NY Slip Op 51740(U) [16 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on September 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 13, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2006-598 K C.

Neil Ir, Respondent,

against

Rupert A. Wynter, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered September 23, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,000.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff instituted this small claims action to recover the sum of $1,000 based on a breach of an escrow agreement. Following the nonjury trial, the court found plaintiff's testimony, that he, in effect, substantially complied with the conditions of the agreement, credible. Judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor in the principal sum of $1,000.

The determination of issues of credibility is 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 CCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). In view of the foregoing, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807).

Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur.

Golia, J., taking no part. [*2]
Decision Date: September 13, 2007