Maher v Tejada

[*1] Maher v Tejada 2020 NY Slip Op 50411(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: : JERRY GARGUILO, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ
2019-788 S C

Maryann Maher, Appellant,

against

Jose Tejada, Respondent.

Maryann Maher, appellant pro se. Jose Tejada, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (Garrett W. Swenson, J.), entered February 21, 2019. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant, her former landlord, to recover a $2,300 security deposit and additional rent she had paid defendant for her use of a washer and dryer during a certain period of time. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the principal sum of $2,500. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and defendant's counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed her cause of 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 [*2]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, insofar as appealed from, provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807). The court's determination dismissing plaintiff's cause of action is supported by the record and is based in part on its implicit factual findings and credibility determinations.

We note that evidence which is dehors the record has not been considered (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

GARGUILO, J.P., ADAMS and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 9, 2020