Platsky v Lave

[*1] Platsky v Lave 2009 NY Slip Op 52507(U) [25 Misc 3d 143(A)] Decided on May 8, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 8, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
2008-1060 K C.

Henry Platsky, Appellant,

against

Stanley Lave, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered January 3, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $2,650, based upon a claim that defendant, plaintiff's landlord, had tampered with plaintiff's mail. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

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 e.g. 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 e.g. Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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 e.g. Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court's decision to dismiss plaintiff's action provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: May 08, 2009