ELLEN BODNER PT v. MARGATE (2021)

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.