Action Repair Servs. Corp. v Glatt Kosher of Merrick, Inc.

[*1] Action Repair Servs. Corp. v Glatt Kosher of Merrick, Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 50345(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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:: NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and MARANO, JJ
2012-1504 N C.

Action Repair Services Corp., Respondent,

against

Glatt Kosher of Merrick, Inc. Also Known as B & G GLATT KOSHER MEAT OF MERRICK, INC. Also Known as GLATT KOSHER MEAT OF MERRICK, INC., Doing Business as KOSHER EMPORIUM, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered October 7, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $750.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover for work, labor and services performed on behalf of defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $750. 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 (see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

The decision of a factfinder should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that his 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 the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the factfinder's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords the factfinder a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510 [1991]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record amply supports the determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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