Knowles v Prescod

[*1] Knowles v Prescod 2015 NY Slip Op 51206(U) Decided on August 3, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 3, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2014-1598 W C

Johnny Knowles, Appellant, August 3, 2015

against

Tracy Prescod, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Mount Vernon, Westchester County (Adam Seiden, J.), entered January 29, 2014. The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated January 28, 2014, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated January 28, 2014 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered January 29, 2014 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 in lost wages and attorney's fees, alleging, in essence, malicious prosecution. After a nonjury trial, the City Court found that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of establishing his claim for malicious prosecution and 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" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 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 this case, the record supports the court's finding that plaintiff failed to establish the elements of malicious prosecution (see Williams v CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 126 AD3d 890 [2015]; Lupski v County of Nassau, 32 AD3d 997 [2006]). As plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see UCCA 1804, 1807).

We note that we do not consider any materials which are dehors the record, nor do we consider any arguments raised for the first time on appeal (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: August 03, 2015