Lebron v Park

[*1] Lebron v Park 2015 NY Slip Op 51763(U) Decided on December 1, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 1, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-2470 K C

Angela Lebron, Appellant,

against

Lindsay Park, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered June 17, 2013. 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 $3,300, representing an equity deposit she had given defendant for her cooperative apartment. At a nonjury trial, defendant conceded that plaintiff had given the $3,300 deposit, but sought a complete setoff, asserting that the premises had been damaged by plaintiff, and that the kitchen cabinets, tiles and carpet needed to be replaced. In support of its claim for a setoff, defendant submitted a written agreement, dated February 3, 2011, in which plaintiff acknowledged the specific repairs to be made and consented to the deduction from her equity deposit of the costs of the repairs, which totaled well over the amount of her deposit. Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

On an appeal 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 the trier of fact as to the 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).

As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no basis to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: December 01, 2015