Harris v Scott

[*1] Harris v Scott 2018 NY Slip Op 50991(U) Decided on June 21, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 21, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : JAMES V. BRANDS, J.P., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
2016-1790 OR C

Steve Harris, Appellant,

against

Keith Scott, Respondent.

Steve Harris, appellant pro se. Keith Scott, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Newburgh, Orange County (Paul D. Trachte, J.), entered October 21, 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 sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant refused to return a vehicle belonging to plaintiff that defendant had been storing at defendant's business address. After a nonjury trial, the City Court found that there was no agreement in terms between the parties; that defendant was no longer in possession of the car, which had been dropped off at defendant's property sometime between 2002 and 2007; and that plaintiff had failed to offer any proof of the value of the car. Accordingly, the 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" (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 [*2]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 (UCCA 1804, 1807). We note that this court may not consider any evidence which is dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 21, 2018