Four Decades Contr., Inc. v Hartenfels

[*1] Four Decades Contr., Inc. v Hartenfels 2016 NY Slip Op 51077(U) Decided on July 8, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 8, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., IANNACCI and BRANDS, JJ.
2014-2689 N C

Four Decades Contracting, Inc., Respondent,

against

Georgine Hartenfels, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Douglas J. Lerose, J.), entered July 1, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,841.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $2,841, representing the unpaid balance due for plaintiff's services in renovating defendant's bathroom. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,841.

In a commercial 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-A [a]; see UDCA 1804-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). 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]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial 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 provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A [a]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 08, 2016