Landrum v Samuels

[*1] Landrum v Samuels 2018 NY Slip Op 50468(U) Decided on April 5, 2018 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 5, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ANTHONY MARANO, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, JAMES V. BRANDS, JJ
2016-345 N C

Michael C. Landrum, Respondent,

against

Donna Samuels, Appellant.

Donna Samuels, appellant pro se. Michael C. Landrum, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Scott H. Siller, J.), entered October 16, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,990.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $1,990, which, he asserts, is the balance of a brokerage commission he is owed from defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff asserted that he had been the real estate broker on the rental of an apartment to defendant; that he had entered into a written agreement with defendant pursuant to which defendant had agreed to pay him a brokerage fee of $2,050; and that there remained a balance due of $1,990. Defendant's landlord confirmed the accuracy of plaintiff's testimony. Defendant denied the authenticity of her signature on the agreement, and denied having agreed to pay a brokerage commission to plaintiff. She also asserted that the apartment she had rented had defects which affected its habitability. Following the trial, the District Court awarded judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,990.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial [*2]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).

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 (UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 05, 2018