Condon Tree Serv. v Melvin

[*1] Condon Tree Serv. v Melvin 2010 NY Slip Op 52023(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-2034 W C.

Condon Tree Service, Appellant,

against

Ann Melvin, Respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Mary Anne Scatteretico-Naber, J.), entered April 15, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,500.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the agreed-upon contract price for cutting down a tree. Plaintiff's owner, James Condon, testified that the parties had agreed to the $4,500 price he had orally quoted to cut down a tree, whereas defendant testified that the price quoted by Condon was $1,500. The City Court awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $1,500. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.

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 a 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 trial court's determination awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1,500, we affirm the judgment.

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