Datex NY, Inc. v Adorable Pillows

[*1] Datex NY, Inc. v Adorable Pillows 2015 NY Slip Op 50082(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-1736 K C

Datex New York, Inc., Respondent,

against

Adorable Pillows, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered April 9, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,400.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $4,400 for goods allegedly sold and delivered but not paid for. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,400.

In a commercial claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807-A [a]; see CCA 1804-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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]). The deference normally accorded to the credibility determinations of a trial court applies with greater force in the Commercial 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 at 126). In this case, we find that the Civil Court's determination rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1807-A [a]), as there is support in the record for the court's finding that plaintiff had established its case. It is noted that defendant's arguments on appeal were not raised below and so are not properly before this court. In any event, we find that defendant's objections are not sufficient to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: January 15, 2015