DeSantis v Schulder

[*1] DeSantis v Schulder 2010 NY Slip Op 50618(U) [27 Misc 3d 130(A)] Decided on January 22, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 22, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and GOLIA, JJ
2009-546 Q C.

Jessica DeSantis, Respondent,

against

Robin Schulder, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Lee A. Mayersohn, J.), entered June 16, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,218.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

In the instant small claims action, plaintiff alleged that she had purchased from defendant a Yorkshire terrier that was in poor health at the time of sale and that defendant had falsely represented to be female. Plaintiff sought to recover from defendant, among other things, the expenses she incurred for the puppy's treatment. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,218 for the cost of treatment. On this appeal from the judgment, the sole issue raised by defendant is that she acted on behalf of a corporation and that she should not be held individually liable.

On an appeal in a small claims matter, our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice has been done between the parties "according to the rules
and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807). The deference which we normally accord to the credibility determinations of the trial court "applies with greater force" in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). A small claims judgment may not be reversed absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the trial court's conclusions, or that the trial court's determination is otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620 [1986]).

In the instant case, after hearing the testimony of the parties, the trial court apparently found plaintiff's testimony to be more credible than defendant's version of the facts, and there is no reason for this court to disturb that determination. Upon the record before us, and in the [*2]absence of any documentary evidence to support defendant's allegation that she was not individually responsible for the transaction in question, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties (CCA 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 22, 2010