Hirschkorn v Goldman

[*1] Hirschkorn v Goldman 2018 NY Slip Op 50662(U) Decided on May 4, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 4, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-2159 K C

Philip E. Hirschkorn, Respondent,

against

Jeremy S. Goldman, Appellant.

Jeremy S. Goldman, appellant pro se. Philip E. Hirschkorn, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered May 19, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,850 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a $4,850 deposit he had given defendant in connection with an agreement to sublease defendant's cooperative apartment for one year. Defendant counterclaimed to retain the deposit and to recover an additional $1,003.70 for alleged damages exceeding the amount of the deposit. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the sum of $3,850 and dismissed the counterclaim.

In a small claims action, this court's 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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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 rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 04, 2018