Rotem v Hochberg

[*1] Rotem v Hochberg 2010 NY Slip Op 51184(U) [28 Misc 3d 127(A)] Decided on July 7, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through July 9, 2010; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 7, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-630 W C.

Hanan Rotem, M.D., Respondent,

against

J. Sky Hochberg, Appellant.

Appeal from a decision of the City Court of Mount Vernon, Westchester County (Adam Seiden, J.), dated February 11, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered March 13, 2008 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover rent allegedly owed him by defendant. Plaintiff claimed that defendant had moved out of a condominium apartment, which he had leased from plaintiff, three months before the termination date of the lease as extended by a document signed by both parties. Defendant denied that the lease had been extended as claimed by plaintiff and presented the affirmative defense that he had been constructively evicted. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court, finding that defendant had moved out of the subject apartment three months prior to the termination of the lease, as extended, and that there was no constructive eviction, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

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 (UCCA 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]). 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 assess their credibility (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, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record supports the City Court's conclusions, we find no basis to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: July 07, 2010