Prowse v Kent Waterfront Bldrs., L.L.C.

[*1] Prowse v Kent Waterfront Bldrs., L.L.C. 2007 NY Slip Op 52462(U) [18 Misc 3d 129(A)] Decided on December 28, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 28, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2007-307 Q C.

Hector Prowse, Appellant,

against

Kent Waterfront Builders, L.L.C., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph Esposito, J.), entered July 24, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover pay for two weeks of work. After trial, the court dismissed the claim and this appeal ensued.

In a bench trial, particularly in the Small Claims Part of the court, "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, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to
the credibility of witnesses" (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). Under the circumstances presented, substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the judgment of the court below.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 28, 2007