Silverman v Parikh

[*1] Silverman v Parikh 2014 NY Slip Op 51246(U) Decided on July 28, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 28, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
2013-397 OR C

George J. Silverman, CPA, Respondent,

against

Harry Parikh Also Known as HARSHAD R. PARIKH, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Harriman, Orange County (Christine K. Wienberg, J.), entered January 30, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,211.25.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover for unpaid accounting services provided to defendant, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Justice Court which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,211.25.

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed on 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]). 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 McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]; Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]).

Plaintiff satisfied his burden of establishing that defendant had failed to pay for the accounting services provided, and defendant failed to rebut this showing. Upon a review of the record, we find that the Justice Court's resolution of the issue of credibility in favor of plaintiff was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence and that there is no basis for this court to disturb the Justice Court's determination.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: July 28, 2014