Pumarejo v Weissberg

[*1] Pumarejo v Weissberg 2015 NY Slip Op 51784(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2014-901 S C

Jesus Pumarejo Doing Business as P.J. Electric, Respondent, -

against

Carmen Weissberg, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (David A. Morris, J.), entered September 20, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he completed electrical work which defendant had hired him to perform, but defendant failed to pay him for his services. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

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, 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).

As the record supports the District Court's determination, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: December 02, 2015