XU v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (2024)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Yanping Xu commenced this small claims action for breach of contract seeking the principal sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant, Capital One Bank, breached the parties’ credit card agreement when it charged her $110 in late fees after she disputed two transactions involving the purchase of face cream from nonparty Products Hub. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court (Stephen L. Ukeiley, J.) 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, 126 [2000]). 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 a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must show the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, defendant's breach of his or her contractual obligations, and the damages resulting from the breach (see Dee v Rakower, 112 AD3d 204 [2013]). Here, plaintiff failed to submit the credit card agreement between the parties and failed to refer to any provisions therein that were breached. Moreover, the evidence presented at trial included Products Hub's documentation of proof of plaintiff's face cream purchases for a total of $106.11, plaintiff's testimony that the face creams were still in her possession and had been used, and defense witness testimony that plaintiff failed to submit relevant responses to defendant's inquiries about the disputed charges and that plaintiff had never paid the $106.11 charged for the creams.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Plaintiff's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this court on appeal (see R & B Design Concepts, Inc. v Wenger Constr. Co., Inc., 153 AD3d 864 [2017]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

DRISCOLL, J.P., GARGUILO and CONWAY, JJ., concur.