Clark v Patino

[*1] Clark v Patino 2014 NY Slip Op 50051(U) Decided on January 10, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 10, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TOLBERT, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ
2012-772 RO C.

Cuudoes Clark, Appellant,

against

John Patino and KATYA PATINO, Respondents.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County (Rolf M. Thorsen, J.), entered October 28, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $250.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, defendants' former tenant, commenced this small claims action to recover her security deposit in the amount of $1,650 and for damage to her personal property. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $250 for the replacement of three bicycles but allowed plaintiff no recovery on the security deposit because of the damage caused by plaintiff to the premises. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court should not have set off the value of the damage it found that plaintiff had caused to defendants' premises against the security deposit. 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 (UJCA 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]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a 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 v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record supports the trial court's determinations, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Tolbert, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 10, 2014