Baker v Campos

[*1] Baker v Campos 2014 NY Slip Op 50972(U) Decided on June 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 13, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2012-1404 K C

Sandra Baker, Appellant,

against

Araceli Campos, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), dated September 30, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $1,500 for personal injuries sustained. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

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 CCA 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]). 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 limited standard of review (see CCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the Civil Court's determination was based on a fair interpretation of the record, we find no basis to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 13, 2014