Guillaume v Master Kitchen & Bath

[*1] Guillaume v Master Kitchen & Bath 2010 NY Slip Op 52018(U) [29 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on November 19, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 19, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., NICOLAI and MOLIA, JJ
2009-1734 N C.

Jocelyne Guillaume, Respondent,

against

Master Kitchen & Bath, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Rhonda E. Fischer, J.), entered November 10, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for the allegedly defective installation of items in plaintiff's kitchen. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500. On appeal, defendant asserts that the District Court erred in finding that defendant's installation 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 (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 assess 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 District Court's conclusions, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Iannacci, J.P., Nicolai and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 19, 2010