Tonge v Cedar Hill Assoc.

[*1] Tonge v Cedar Hill Assoc. 2014 NY Slip Op 51325(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
2013-744 RO C

Reginald Tonge, Sr., Appellant,

against

Cedar Hill Associates, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Patrick J. Loftus, J.), entered July 16, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, defendant's former tenant, commenced this small claims action to recover a security deposit which defendant had failed to return to plaintiff. After a nonjury trial, the Justice 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 UJCA 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 Justice Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: August 20, 2014