Phillips v Empire State Bldrs. & Contrs., Inc.

[*1] Phillips v Empire State Bldrs. & Contrs., Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 50471(U) Decided on April 7, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 7, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2013-2474 W C

Glenn Phillips, Respondent,

against

Empire State Builders & Contractors, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Thomas R. Daly, J.), entered February 7, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,761.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action for breach of contract, plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendant had not installed a roof system at plaintiff's house in accordance with the parties' contract, resulting in a leak. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,761, of which $1,500 represented damage which resulted from defendant's work on plaintiff's roof. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in finding that the roof was not properly installed.

In a small 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" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; 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]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the small claims judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UCCA 1807). The evidence revealed that the roof leaked around the chimney only after defendant had installed it; that the chimney had been serviced with a stainless steel liner two years prior to the roof work; and that the contract between the parties called for the installation of an ice and water shield around the chimney, which had not been installed.

As the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see UCCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: April 07, 2015