Hynard v Ravine Garden Condo Assn.

[*1] Hynard v Ravine Garden Condo Assn. 2017 NY Slip Op 51609(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Ravine Garden Condo Association, Respondent. NO. Paul O. Hynard, appellant pro se. Ravine Garden Condo Assoc., respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Mount Vernon, Westchester County (Adam Seiden, J.), entered April 5, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $1,601.30, representing the costs plaintiff claims to have incurred in complying with defendant's allegedly improper imposition of a requirement that unit owners in defendant condominium association install a specific type of bracket for window air conditioners.

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" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 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).

At a nonjury trial, plaintiff failed to establish that defendant lacked the authority to impose specific requirements for air conditioner installations in the condominium; nor did he demonstrate that defendant's rulemaking methodology deviated from the requirements of [*2]defendant's governing organizational documents. Plaintiff also failed to prove that defendant was obligated to bear the cost of the condominium unit owners' compliance with its rules for air conditioner installations. Since plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case for liability or damages, we conclude that the dismissal of the action rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807).

We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

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