Elrefaey v City Cadillac-Buick-GMC, Inc.

[*1] Elrefaey v City Cadillac-Buick-GMC, Inc. 2020 NY Slip Op 51111(U) Decided on September 4, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 4, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2018-1795 K C

Youssef Elrefaey, Appellant,

against

City Cadillac-Buick-GMC, Inc., Respondent.

Youssef Elrefaey, appellant pro se. The Muhlstock Law Firm, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lizette Colon, J.), entered March 5, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $12,000, alleging that defendant had failed to complete certain repair work on plaintiff's vehicle in a timely manner. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that 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 Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]). As the record supports the Civil Court's determination that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case, we find no reason to disturb the judgment. We note that we do not consider those contentions that are raised for the first time on appeal (see Chery v Richards, 64 Misc 3d 148[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51403[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 4, 2020