Paul v Car Lovers Automotive

[*1] Paul v Car Lovers Automotive 2015 NY Slip Op 51085(U) Decided on July 14, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 14, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2014-332 K C

Aubrey Paul, Respondent,

against

Car Lovers Automotive, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 1, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,119.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $1,500 for defective repairs to a vehicle, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,119.

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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 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). In the instant case, the trial court had the opportunity to evaluate the evidence, and found that plaintiff's version

of the facts was more credible. Consequently, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807) and affirm the judgment.

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

Decision Date: July 14, 2015