Elenson v Kevelson

[*1] Elenson v Kevelson 2014 NY Slip Op 50409(U) Decided on March 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 10, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and MARANO, JJ
2012-1942 N C.

Brian Elenson, Appellant,

against

Anna Kevelson, Also Known as ANNA K., Respondent. NO. 2012-1943 N C BRIAN ELENSON, Appellant, VINCENT KIRETCHJIAN, Respondent.

Separate appeals from two judgments of the City Court of Long Beach, Nassau County (Frank D. DiKranis, J.), entered February 10, 2012. Each judgment, after a joint nonjury trial of separate small claims actions, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an operator of a business that sets up and runs estate sales, commenced a separate small claims action against each defendant, alleging that each defendant had failed to pay for certain merchandise purchased at an estate sale on May 13, 2010. The actions were consolidated for trial.

At the nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that each defendant routinely purchased merchandise from him at estate sales and that they had a "revolving credit line" with him for the purchase of such merchandise. Plaintiff explained that when defendants purchased merchandise from him, they would typically pay off their previous balance and that the new purchases would then be on credit. Plaintiff further stated that defendant Anna Kevelson purchased $5,200 worth of jewelry on May 13th, and defendant Vincent Kiretchjian purchased merchandise for a total price of $1,100. Defendant Anna Kevelson testified that defendant Vincent Kiretchijian always paid plaintiff for their purchases at the time of their purchases. Following the trial, the City Court dismissed the actions in separate judgments. The court noted that plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claims.

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]; Scott v Marshon, 39 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50712[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). 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]). 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 [2005]).

As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find that the judgments rendered substantial justice between the respective parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed. [*2]

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Marano, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2014