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.
Effie M. FRADELAKIS, Appellant, v. EAST HILLS CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM SRT, Respondent.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $2,616.25. At a nonjury trial, the evidence showed that plaintiff had leased a vehicle from the Chrysler Financial Company (Chrysler). Plaintiff and her witness testified that, at the end of the lease, they had brought the vehicle to defendant, which had agreed to purchase the vehicle and, in effect, to indemnify plaintiff for excess mileage costs she owed to Chrysler. Defendant denied having made such an agreement and denied having purchased the vehicle from plaintiff; instead, defendant claimed that it had accepted the return of the vehicle on behalf of Chrysler, and had merely agreed to hold it for that entity on a temporary basis. Following a nonjury trial, the District 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” (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 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).
The judgment dismissing the action implicitly rested on a credibility determination which, upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb. Consequently, the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UDCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
EMERSON, J.P., DRISCOLL and WALSH, 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: 2022-891 N C
Decided: November 30, 2023
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)