Coleman v New Delhi Auto Repair

[*1] Coleman v New Delhi Auto Repair 2009 NY Slip Op 52221(U) [25 Misc 3d 134(A)] Decided on October 23, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 23, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2009-117 Q C.

John M. Coleman, Appellant,

against

New Delhi Auto Repair, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Rudolph E. Greco Jr., J.), dated August 4, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for defendant's allegedly defective repairs to the air conditioning in plaintiff's automobile. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court found in favor of defendant and dismissed the action. Upon a review of the record, 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 (CCA 1804, 1807; 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]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). 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]). The trial court implicitly found that plaintiff had purchased a compressor from a junkyard and had defendant install it. When the [*2]compressor failed to function, plaintiff bought a second compressor, which defendant also installed and which similarly did not function. As there has been no showing that defendant was responsible for the defective parts which plaintiff supplied, we find that the record amply supports the trial court's determination. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 23, 2009