Giacinto v 671 Bronx Riv. Rd. Owners Corp.

[*1] Giacinto v 671 Bronx Riv. Rd. Owners Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 52227(U) [30 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on December 16, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 16, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-2388 W C.

Mike Giacinto, Appellant,

against

671 Bronx River Road Owners Corp. and Anthony Konkowski, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Thomas R. Daly, J.), entered May 26, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover for damage to plaintiff's car, the City Court dismissed the action after a nonjury trial, finding that plaintiff had failed to sustain his burden of proof. 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]). 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 plaintiff failed to establish that defendants' conduct was the proximate cause of damage to plaintiff's automobile, we find no reason to disturb the City Court's determination. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 16, 2010