Pitt v Fraser

[*1] Pitt v Fraser 2018 NY Slip Op 51060(U) Decided on June 29, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 29, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, JJ
2016-2995 K C

Waveney Pitt, Respondent,

against

Gregory A. Fraser, Appellant.

Gregory A. Fraser, appellant pro se. Waveney Pitt, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 31, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,172 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover her security deposit, in the sum of $1,020, and the rent she had paid for the days that she had been locked out of the premises, for a total sum of $1,295. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $4,598.49 for property damage to the apartment and other costs he had allegedly incurred. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,172 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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).

As the court's determination is supported by the record and provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 29, 2018