JAKUBOWSKI v. Innova Interiors, Inc., Respondent. (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover the sum of $16,140 plus interest alleging, insofar as relevant to this appeal, that Innova Interiors, Inc. (defendant) failed to pay for architectural services rendered. Defendant denied the allegation and a nonjury trial ensued. The evidence at the trial established that plaintiff was an independent contractor who did architectural drawings for defendant from July 29, 2016 to September 28, 2016. There was no written contract between the parties. Plaintiff admitted that he had agreed to charge an hourly rate of $30 and that defendant had made a partial payment for services rendered. Plaintiff subsequently sent defendant three invoices charging a $30 hourly rate. When defendant failed to pay those invoices, plaintiff sent defendant three other invoices for the same services as set forth in the three prior ones but charging a $45 hourly rate therefor. The Civil Court found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him $4,000 based upon a $30 per hour rate. Plaintiff appeals arguing that he was entitled to an award based on a $45 hourly rate after defendant failed to pay his initial invoices.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that 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 Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824 [2008]).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's determination that plaintiff was entitled to be paid at a $30, rather than $45, hourly rate.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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