Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Shahin BEROUKHIM, Appellant, v. HERTZ RENT A CAR, Respondent.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 for damage to his vehicle resulting from an accident with a vehicle owned by defendant and operated by defendant's employee, Amira Hassan. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he was stopped at a traffic light when defendant's vehicle struck his vehicle. Hassan testified that plaintiff turned his vehicle to the right and collided with defendant's vehicle that was proceeding straight. The police report, which was admitted into evidence, revealed that plaintiff told the reporting officer that he was attempting to turn onto West 37th Street from lane #2. Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.
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 [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 [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 court found that Hassan had provided credible testimony that it was plaintiff's negligence which had caused the accident. As there is no basis in the record to disturb the court's credibility determination, we find that the judgment in favor of defendant rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2019-829 Q C
Decided: June 17, 2022
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)