Blustin v Ocean Kay Realty Corp.

[*1] Blustin v Ocean Kay Realty Corp. 2014 NY Slip Op 51313(U) Decided on August 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 20, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-1507 K C

Vladimir Blustin, Respondent,

against

Ocean Kay Realty Corp., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered October 6, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, representing the cost of repairs that plaintiff had made to rental premises, alleging that defendant, the managing agent for the premises, had failed to make the repairs after notice of the need therefor. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff $5,000, plus interest and costs, finding that the credible evidence, including photographs, two estimates, paid invoices and cancelled checks, was sufficient to prove plaintiff's case. Defendant appeals, contending, among other things, that plaintiff did not establish that it had notified defendant of the need for repairs.

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]). 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 there is support in the record for the Civil Court's determination,

including its finding that defendant was given notice of the need for repairs, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: August 20, 2014