MAY v. REICH (2018)

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendants George T. Reich and Eye–Spy Associates ¹ to recover $200 for "services rendered and failure to return deposit, on 03–15–2013." Plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Civil Court as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed so much of the action as was asserted against those defendants.

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, 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).

In this case, the Civil Court had the opportunity to evaluate the evidence and found that the testimony of the defense witnesses was more credible than that of plaintiff. As the court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807), the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Plaintiff had also sought to recover $1,000 from Frank Gambino, the president of Eye–Spy Associates, but agreed, during the course of the trial, to discontinue so much of the action as was asserted against him.

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