Messam v Neisca

[*1] Messam v Neisca 2020 NY Slip Op 50848(U) Decided on July 10, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 10, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2018-2475 Q C

Wainwright Messam, Respondent,

against

Perpetue Neisca, Appellant.

Perpetue Neisca, appellant pro se. Wainwright Messam, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (John C. Katsanos, J.), entered May 15, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In June 2017, plaintiff, defendant's former landlord, terminated defendant's month-to-month tenancy. Defendant held over, and plaintiff commenced a summary proceeding, which resulted in a stipulation awarding plaintiff possession and requiring defendant to vacate the apartment by November 30, 2017. It is undisputed that defendant vacated the apartment on that date. In the instant small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $5,000, the monetary jurisdictional limit of the Small Claims Part (see CCA 1801), based on, in effect, use and occupancy of $1,400 per month for each of the months of July 2017 through November 2017, a sum which defendant had previously been paying. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $5,000.

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 [2006]). 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 [*2]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 rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 10, 2020