Fabara v Today's Auto Repair

[*1] Fabara v Today's Auto Repair 2018 NY Slip Op 51047(U) Decided on June 28, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, J.P., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, JAMES V. BRANDS, JJ
2017-684 N C

Jaime E. Fabara, Appellant,

against

Today's Auto Repair, Respondent.

Jaime E. Fabara, appellant pro se. Today's Auto Repair, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (William A. Hohauser, J.), entered October 27, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,700 for defendant's allegedly "unnecessary repairs" on a vehicle which plaintiff had purchased from defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District 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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 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 provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk