DiCicco v Calvin Oliver Intl. Racing, Inc.

[*1] DiCicco v Calvin Oliver Intl. Racing, Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 50706(U) Decided on April 16, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 16, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and TOLBERT, JJ
2013-224 W C.

Vincent R. DiCicco, DVM, Respondent,

against

Calvin Oliver International Racing, Inc. also Known as CALVIN OLIVER TAI-FATT, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Rye, Westchester County (Joseph L. Latwin, J.), entered January 4, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,920.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover for veterinary services allegedly rendered at Yonkers Raceway to two horses owned by defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he was a licensed veterinarian, that over the course of three months, at the request of the horses' trainer, one Dennis Laterza, he had rendered veterinary services to the horses, and that he had sent defendant monthly bills for his services. He asserted that his first bill, for $645, had been paid, but that his subsequent two bills, in the total sum of $1,920, remained unpaid. Defendant's representative confirmed that defendant owned the horses in question, and that Mr. Laterza had been retained as the horses' trainer during the time period when plaintiff claimed to have rendered the veterinary services for which he had billed defendant. He claimed, however, that Mr. Laterza had been instructed that only a specific veterinarian located in Port Deposit, Maryland was authorized to provide veterinary treatment to the horses.

Following trial, judgment was awarded to plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,920. In its decision, the City Court noted that Mr. Laterza, as agent for defendant, had authority to engage a veterinarian to care for the horses, and indicated that it had also premised the judgment in favor of plaintiff on a credibility finding.

Our review is limited to determining whether "substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807). The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that its conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). 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 [1991]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court, given the [*2]limited standard of review (see UCCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

Upon our review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the implicit determination of the City Court that the trainer, Mr. Laterza, had actual or apparent authority to engage plaintiff's services. Consequently, we conclude that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UCCA 1804, 1807).

We note that we do not consider those materials submitted on appeal which are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 16, 2014