Rose-Ott Interior Design Corp. v ArtTech

[*1] Rose-Ott Interior Design Corp. v ArtTech 2009 NY Slip Op 51391(U) [24 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on June 29, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 29, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2008-1682 N C.

Rose-Ott Interior Design Corp., Respondent,

against

ArtTech, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Rhonda E. Fischer, J.), entered on March 5, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,861.74.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this commercial claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover for, inter alia, defendant's defective installation of kitchen cabinets and failure to provide a dishwasher panel. After a nonjury trial, the court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,861.74. 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-A, 1807-A; 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]). 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]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see UDCA 1807-A; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). Upon a review of the record, we find that it supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment.

The decision and order of this court entered herein on June 2, 2009 are hereby recalled [*2]and vacated (see motion decided simultaneously herewith).

Rudolph, P.J., and Molia, J., concur.

Scheinkman, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: June 29, 2009