Robinson v Spence

[*1] ? 2014 NY Slip Op 50884(U) Decided on May 22, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 22, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ.
2012-1912 W C

Margaret Robinson, Respondent-Appellant, -and- LEROY ROBINSON, Respondent,

against

Everton Spence, Appellant-Respondent, -and- EVER EXTREME AUTO CENTER, Defendant.

Appeal, and cross appeal on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the City Court of Mount Vernon, Westchester County (Adam Seiden, J.), entered January 23, 2012. The judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Everton Spence, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $900 as against him.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Everton Spence, is affirmed, without costs; and it is further,

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

In this small claims action, plaintiffs seek to recover the sum of $2,000 for defendant's allegedly improper repair of their automobile. After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $900. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Everton Spence, provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 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 determination 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 [*2]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 City Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Everton Spence, is affirmed. As the cross appeal has not been timely perfected, it is dismissed as abandoned.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Tolbert, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: May 22, 2014