Rich v Steiger

[*1] Rich v Steiger 2014 NY Slip Op 50604(U) Decided on March 27, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ
2012-1621 N C.

Norman Edward Rich Doing Business as NORMAN E. RICH, DDS, Respondent,

against

Alan Steiger, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered May 14, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $850.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a dentist, commenced this small claims action to recover from defendant, his former patient, the sum of $1,704.80, the amount allegedly due for dental treatment rendered to defendant. At a nonjury trial, defendant's mother testified that, before she had made the dental appointment in question for her son, she had telephoned plaintiff's office and had been informed that plaintiff accepts all insurance and that any fees for treatment would be fully covered by the insurance. Plaintiff testified that, in his 37 years of practice, this had never been his office policy and that his patients were responsible for any amounts not covered by their insurance. He contended that defendant's mother had been told that this was his policy, although there was no written document to that effect, and that he had billed defendant for the amounts not covered by insurance. He further acknowledged that his "account history report" showed that there was a balance due of $998.84, and he agreed to reduce his claim to that amount. In a judgment entered May 14, 2012, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $850, from which judgment defendant appeals.

In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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 125). As the record amply supports the District Court's determination, we find [*2]no reason to disturb the judgment.

We note that we do not consider those items annexed to defendant's brief which, not having been presented to the District Court, are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 27, 2014