Payne v Miller

[*1] Payne v Miller 2015 NY Slip Op 51782(U) Decided on December 2, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 2, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-727 K C

Kamela Payne, Respondent,

against

Beverly Miller, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered December 19, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,520.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $2,610, representing a real estate commission allegedly owed to her by defendant. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,520.

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, 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). The judgment in this case rested in large part upon credibility determinations and, upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the court's implicit findings.

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

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 02, 2015