Payamps v Sanchez

[*1] Payamps v Sanchez 2016 NY Slip Op 50957(U) Decided on June 15, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 15, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-296 K C

Miguelina Payamps, Respondent,

against

Ninibe Sanchez, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered October 24, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,150 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, defendant's former tenant, commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $1,150, the amount of her security deposit. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $5,000 for "loss of property." At a nonjury trial, defendant sought to demonstrate, among other things, that plaintiff had caused damage to the apartment. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,150 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

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).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: June 15, 2016