Marble Magician, Inc. v Boxenhorn

[*1] Marble Magician, Inc. v Boxenhorn 2009 NY Slip Op 52465(U) [25 Misc 3d 142(A)] Decided on December 7, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 7, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
2008-2299 S C.

Marble Magician, Inc., Respondent,

against

Scott Boxenhorn, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered August 4, 2008. The judgment, afer a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,523.69.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the balance allegedly due for tiles sold to defendant. Upon a review of the record, we find that the District Court's judgment provided 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).

The record establishes that plaintiff properly rejected defendant's attempt to return various tiles. Plaintiff's return policy required that standard tiles be returned within 30 days of delivery and that custom-made tiles were not returnable at any time. Defendant failed to demonstrate that he had complied with plaintiff's return policy. As the record supports the trial court's finding in [*2]favor of plaintiff, the judgment is affirmed.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 07, 2009