Abraham v Tristate Window Factory

[*1] Abraham v Tristate Window Factory 2010 NY Slip Op 50834(U) [27 Misc 3d 136(A)] Decided on May 10, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 10, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-963 N C.

Alex Abraham and Valea Abraham, Appellants,

against

Tristate Window Factory, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Bonnie P. Chaikin, J.), dated January 8, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiffs seek to recover for the allegedly defective installation of a roof. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found in favor of defendant and dismissed the action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 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]). 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]). 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). As we find no reason to disturb the District Court's determination, the judgment is affirmed. [*2]

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 10, 2010