Rabolt v Nieroda & Assoc.

[*1] Rabolt v Nieroda & Assoc. 2010 NY Slip Op 51055(U) [27 Misc 3d 142(A)] Decided on June 11, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 11, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-785 S C.

Thomas Rabolt, Appellant,

against

Nieroda & Associates and DANIEL NIERODA, JR., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered September 25, 2008. 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 the sum of $3,500, alleging that defendants had improperly handled plaintiff's bankruptcy action. After a nonjury trial, the District Court 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]). 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). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it 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, the judgment is affirmed.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2010