AIRLITE WINDOWS INC v. ANOPA (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the balance due on a contract for the installation of two patio doors in defendant's apartment located in Westchester County. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $5,000, representing the cost to repair plaintiff's defective work and the damage plaintiff caused to defendant's apartment. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. Defendant appeals.

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]). 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 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]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804-A, 1807-A [a]).

We note that certain documents included in defendant's brief are dehors the record and were not considered (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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