Wilkinson v Martir

[*1] Wilkinson v Martir 2014 NY Slip Op 51585(U) Decided on October 29, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ.
2013-973 OR C

James C. Wilkinson, Respondent,

against

Jose Martir, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), entered December 6, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the purchase price of a used car, alleging that he had driven it for only 12 miles after he had purchased it from defendant, when the engine "blew." After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,000, representing the purchase price of the vehicle.

Our review of the judgment in this small claims case is limited to whether "substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807). Moreover, the deference normally accorded to the credibility determinations of a trial court applies with greater force in the Small Claims Part of the court, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Upon our review of the record, we find that, under the circumstances presented, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a judgment in favor of plaintiff based upon his revocation of acceptance of the vehicle (see UCC 2-608). Consequently, we conclude that the City Court's determination that plaintiff was entitled to recover on his claim rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: October 29, 2014