Massoud v David R. Maltz & Co., Inc.

[*1] Massoud v David R. Maltz & Co., Inc. 2009 NY Slip Op 50807(U) [23 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on April 24, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 24, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ
2008-280 N C.

Jadidian Massoud, Appellant,

against

David R. Maltz & Co., Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Sondra K. Pardes, J.), entered March 5, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover a deposit in the sum of $1,500 paid to defendant pursuant to an agreement to purchase a vehicle at an automobile auction. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found in favor of defendant and dismissed the action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the 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]).

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]). 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 standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). We find that the record supports the trial court's conclusions and, therefore, find no reason to disturb the judgment dismissing the action. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: April 24, 2009