Marino v Minnesota Ave. Commons, LLC

[*1] Marino v Minnesota Ave. Commons, LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 51607(U) Decided on November 16, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 16, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ANTHONY MARANO, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, JAMES V. BRANDS, JJ
2016-1186 N C

Christian Maxim Marino and Jessie L. Montgomery, Respondents,

against

Minnesota Avenue Commons, LLC, Appellant.

Keren Mashiah, Esq., for appellant. Christian Maxim Marino and Jessie L. Montgomery, respondents pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Paul L. Meli, J.), entered October 16, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,850.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action against defendant, their former landlord, to recover the sum of $3,850, representing the balance of their $4,000 security deposit which they claimed was due them. Defendant appeals from a judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,850.

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 [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]). 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 no basis to disturb the District Court's determination, as it provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and [*2]principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2017