LASPATA v. BIG BUS TOURS NEW YORK (2021)

Judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2020, affirmed, without costs.

The trial court accomplished “substantial justice” in dismissing plaintiff's claim against his employer for alleged improper cancellation of health insurance (see CCA 1804, 1807). A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the court's finding that defendant was not responsible for plaintiff's failure to re-enroll in the health insurance plan during the open enrollment period. Plaintiff's own testimony established that employees were required to re-enroll in the plan themselves. Although plaintiff informed defendant that he was having difficulty in attempting to re-enroll online, the credited evidence showed that plaintiff failed to follow defendant's subsequent instructions to attend an in-person registration session or to follow up with the human resources department. Particularly in the context of small claims cases, the decision of the fact-finding court is entitled to deference where it rests in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.