Auster v Springut

[*1] Auster v Springut 2014 NY Slip Op 50342(U) Decided on February 28, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 28, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TOLBERT, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ
2012-972 W C.

Lori A. Auster, Respondent,

against

Milton Springut, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Barbara A. Leak, J.), entered October 4, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,935.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $2,225; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a dentist, commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,545, representing the balance due for dental treatment rendered to defendant and his family. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the City Court which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,935.

In a small claims action, appellate review is limited to determining whether substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1807; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707 [1997]). 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]). Moreover, 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]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at trial failed to establish an accord and satisfaction. The essential elements of an accord and satisfaction are a dispute as to the amount due, and a knowing acceptance by the creditor of a lesser amount, such as the acceptance of a check in full settlement of a disputed claim (see 19A NY Jur 2d, Compromise, Accord, and Release § 1). Although defendant testified that the parties had agreed that plaintiff would accept payment of $1,875 in full satisfaction of defendant's outstanding balance, plaintiff testified that she did not make such an agreement. The City Court apparently found plaintiff's version of the facts to be more credible than defendant's, and we find no reason to disturb the City Court's determination in this regard.

Nevertheless, while we credit defendant's testimony that he was not a guarantor of payment for the dental treatment rendered to his former wife and two adult children, the record [*2]reflects that defendant himself was treated by plaintiff on April 9, 2009, May 9, 2009 and October 24, 2009, and that, as of the date of trial, there remained a balance due for the treatments performed on those dates. Furthermore, defendant conceded, at oral argument, that the unpaid balance for his own dental treatment was $2,225.

Consequently, we find that substantial justice between the parties (see UCCA 1804, 1807) requires that the award to plaintiff be reduced to the principal sum of $2,225, and we modify the judgment accordingly.

Tolbert, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 28, 2014