Singh v Yogi Transmission Shop, Inc.

[*1] Singh v Yogi Transmission Shop, Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 51357(U) [28 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on July 29, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 29, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2009-1576 Q C.

Jaspal Singh, Respondent,

against

Yogi Transmission Shop, Inc., Appellant

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), dated January 21, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,140.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for the defective repair of the transmission of his automobile. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,140. On appeal, defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to prove that the repair was defective. 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 (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, 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]). Based upon a review of the record, we find that the court properly determined that defendant's repair of the transmission of plaintiff's automobile was defective. As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 29, 2010