Erraverde Assoc. v ASA Constr. & Contr. Corp.

[*1] Erraverde Assoc. v ASA Constr. & Contr. Corp. 2015 NY Slip Op 50069(U) Decided on January 15, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 15, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MARANO, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
2013-1011 N C

Terraverde Associates, Respondent,

against

ASA Construction & Contracting Corp. RIMA NAYBERG and ALEX NAYBERG, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Douglas Lerose, J.), entered January 17, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $3,971, alleging that defendants had failed to tender complete payment in accordance with a contract between the parties. Defendants appeal from a judgment of the District Court, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500. Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A).

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that its 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 Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510 [1991] ). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: January 15, 2015