Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C. v Margate

[*1] Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C. v Margate 2021 NY Slip Op 50131(U) Decided on February 19, 2021 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 19, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th & 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ.

Submitted - January 6, 2021 Term

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Floralen Absin Margate, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Addminas Powell, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Lanie Velasco, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Patricia Sito, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Mary Ann Domingo, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Elayne Pereira, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Natalie LaRosiliere, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Adrianne Depierro, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Rajamathangi Gounder, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Maria Delgado, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Lynne Xuhle, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Brittney Forde, Respondent.

Ellen C. Bodner PT, P.C., Appellant,

against

Lynne Kuhle, Respondent.

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2282 Q C Lower Court # SC 30051-17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2286 Q C Lower Court # SC 30567/17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2290 Q C Lower Court # SC 30143-17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2295 Q C Lower Court # SC 30052-17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2296 Q C Lower Court # SC 30197-17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2297 Q C Lower Court # SC 30568/17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2299 Q C Lower Court # SC 30144-17

[*2]Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2300 Q C Lower Court # SC 30050-17

Appellate Term Docket No.2018-2301 Q C Lower Court # SC 30371-17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2302 Q C Lower Court # SC 30142-17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2306 Q C Lower Court # SC 303196-17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2018-2317 Q C Lower Court # SCQ 30198/17

Appellate Term Docket No. 2019-205 Q C Lower Court # SC 30372/2017

Stephen David Fink, Esq., for appellant.

Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato & Wolf LLP (Matthew Didora and John S. Cahalan of counsel), for respondents.

Appeals from 13 judgments of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Phillip Hom, J.), entered March 29, 2018. The judgments, after a joint nonjury trial, dismissed the 13 actions.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for the purposes of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed, without costs.

In these 13 commercial claims actions, plaintiff seeks to recover for alleged "duplicated payroll" from the respective defendants, alleging that plaintiff paid defendants for work they performed for plaintiff during a specified period, while another entity also paid defendants for the same work. Following a joint nonjury trial, the Civil Court found in favor of defendants and dismissed the 13 actions.

In a commercial 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-A [a]; see CCA 1804-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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 Commercials Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Although the Civil Court did not set forth specific findings of fact (see CPLR 4213 [b]), contrary to plaintiff's argument, a new trial is not required, as it can be determined from the record how the court arrived at its award (see Matter of Mildred Jeraldine C., 14 AD3d 560 [2005]; Weisman Law Group, P.C. v Kleinman, 60 Misc 3d 133[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51042[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]; Albanese v Zeejah, 43 Misc 3d 128[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50482[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]; Cherry v Mendez, 41 Misc 3d 132[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51795[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; Brown v Joseph A. Altman, P.C., 40 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51406[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]). In this case, plaintiff failed to establish any basis for its claims. Plaintiff's owner testified that plaintiff was defendants' employer during the period at issue, and there was no evidence to the contrary, nor were there any other disputed issues of fact. The fact that another entity may have also paid defendants is irrelevant. Thus, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804-A, 1807-A [a]).

Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: February 19, 2021