Mazayoff v Collins

[*1] Mazayoff v Collins 2010 NY Slip Op 50888(U) [27 Misc 3d 138(A)] Decided on May 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 13, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-958 N C.

Yermiahu Mazayoff, Appellant,

against

Maryann Collins, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Tricia M. Ferrell, J.), entered February 27, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for damage allegedly sustained to his automobile as a result of a collision in a parking lot. At the nonjury trial, the parties gave diametrically opposed testimony as to who had caused the accident. After trial, the District Court dismissed the action upon a finding that the credible evidence warranted a judgment in favor of defendant.

"On a bench trial, 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, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses" (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Here, the court was required to weigh conflicting testimony as to who had caused the collision. As we cannot say that the testimony at trial failed to support the District Court's determination, we conclude [*2]that the court provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 13, 2010