Bilello v Perez

[*1] Bilello v Perez 2020 NY Slip Op 50410(U) Decided on April 9, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 9, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : BRUCE E. TOLBERT, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
2019-104 OR C

Gina Bilello and Larry Bilello, Appellants,

against

Danielle Perez, Respondent.

Gina Bilello, appellant pro se. Danielle Perez, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Cornwall, Orange County (Lynn A. Beesecker, J.), entered July 26, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action. The appeal was transferred to this court by decision and order on motion of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, dated January 8, 2020.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $2,900, plaintiffs alleged that defendant, their former tenant, had destroyed plaintiffs' walkway as a result of rough shoveling of snow therefrom, and that dogs in defendant's possession had damaged plaintiffs' lawn. After a nonjury trial, the Justice 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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 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 [*2]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 Justice Court properly determined that plaintiffs had failed to establish their prima facie case. Consequently, the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

TOLBERT, J.P., taking no part.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 9, 2020