Bradley v James

[*1] Bradley v James 2010 NY Slip Op 50696(U) [27 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on April 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 13, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ
2008-1877 K C.

Hortensia Bradley, Respondent,

against

Martha James, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered March 27, 2008. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,500.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking to recover the sum of $3,000 for property damage which resulted when a tree close to the common border between the parties' properties was cut down by defendant's contractor and fell onto plaintiff's property. Defendant interposed a counterclaim for property damage but presented no evidence in support of her counterclaim. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,500 and dismissed the counterclaim. On appeal, defendant raises no issue with respect to the dismissal of her counterclaim and does not dispute that plaintiff's property was damaged but limits her argument to her allegation that plaintiff's mother had agreed to pay for one-half the cost of removing the tree and that, therefore, defendant should not have to pay for the damage caused to plaintiff's property. Plaintiff's mother denied that she had ever entered into any agreement with defendant. Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court's judgment, insofar as appealed from, provided 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, [*2]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]). As the record supports the
trial court's conclusions, we find no basis to disturb the judgment, insofar as appealed from. Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 13, 2010