Levy v Perna

[*1] Levy v Perna 2017 NY Slip Op 51295(U) Decided on September 28, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 28, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: ANTHONY MARANO, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, JERRY GARGUILO, JJ.

2016-425 S C

Nancy Levy, Appellant,

v

Andrew Perna, etc., Respondent.

Nancy Levy, appellant pro se. Michael Finkelstein, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (James F. Matthews, J.), entered October 26, 2015. 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 $5,000 for breach of contract based on defendant's failure to refund, as agreed upon, the sum of $7,600, representing the full cost of a contract paid to defendant to replace her roof, which work defendant never performed. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action.

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 documentary evidence and witness testimony support the District Court's determination that the $7,600 being sued upon had previously been refunded, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 28, 2017