Amann v Stapleton

[*1] Amann v Stapleton 2014 NY Slip Op 50805(U) Decided on May 7, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 7, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MARANO and GARGUILO, JJ.
2013-759 N C

Robert J. Amann, Respondent,

against

Josephine Stapleton, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Terence P. Murphy, J.), entered January 17, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $682.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $682 for personal items which he claims defendant, his former landlord, converted by removing them from his residence. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $682. 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, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [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 at 126). As the record supports the District Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: May 07, 2014