Inkjet Textile Print. v Superchief Gallery

[*1] Inkjet Textile Print. v Superchief Gallery 2021 NY Slip Op 50727(U) Decided on July 23, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 23, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2020-42 Q C

Inkjet Textile Printing, Appellant,

against

Superchief Gallery, Respondent.

Inkjet Textile Printing, appellant pro se. Superchief Gallery, 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 1, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $4,756.35 for damage to printing equipment. After a nonjury trial, the Civil 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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 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 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).

Here, the Civil Court found that plaintiff's witness's testimony lacked credibility and, further, that defendant refuted plaintiff's claims. Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing its alleged damages (see CCA 1804; Hindi v Wajngurt-Levy, 68 Misc 3d [*2]128[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50939[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Jones v Jeff's Express Moving, Stor. & Trucking, 49 Misc 3d 133[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51454[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, we find that the judgment dismissing the action rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

We note that this court does not consider certain documents attached to plaintiff's brief on appeal, as they are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 23, 2021