Feldman v Roslyn Masters Serv. Sta.

[*1] Feldman v Roslyn Masters Serv. Sta. 2015 NY Slip Op 51075(U) Decided on July 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 13, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., IANNACCI and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2014-1555 N C

Steven A. Feldman, Appellant, July 13, 2015

against

Roslyn Masters Service Station, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Joy M. Watson, J.), entered April 10, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $608.48 for allegedly unnecessary and negligent repairs made to his 2002 Lexus. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff presented a service invoice from a Lexus dealership located in Florida to establish that the repairs that defendant had previously performed on his Lexus were unnecessary and negligently done. Following the trial, the District Court dismissed the action.

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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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).

Pursuant to UDCA 1804, an itemized invoice for services or repairs, receipted or marked paid, is prima facie evidence of the reasonable value and necessity of the services or repairs. However, the invoice which plaintiff submitted at trial was not marked paid or receipted and, thus, did not comply with UDCA 1804. Plaintiff otherwise failed to present any evidence to establish that the repairs performed by defendant were unnecessary or negligently done. Thus, the evidence adduced by plaintiff was insufficient to establish his claim. Consequently, we find that the District Court's determination provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: July 13, 2015