MURRAY PETE v. WOODS (2023)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant, her brother's daughter, seeking $5,000 which plaintiff paid for her brother's legal fees. Plaintiff claims that her brother told her that defendant would pay plaintiff back for the legal fees.

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 trial judge found credible defendant's testimony that she had no knowledge of any arrangement which her father and plaintiff may have had regarding his legal fees, and that her father had not given her any money to pay plaintiff back. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

HOM, J.P., TOUSSAINT and BUGGS, JJ., concur.