BURNS v. MCGRATH (2020)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $2,400 for work he did in defendant's yard. Defendant's counterclaim seeks to recover the sum of $3,000, representing the amount he expended as a result of plaintiff's “incomplete” and “unfinished” work. Following a nonjury trial, the Justice Court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,000 on his counterclaim.

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” (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 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).

At the trial, plaintiff conceded that he was not individually licensed to do the work in May of 2017 (see Rockland County Administrative Code § 286), but stated that the work was contracted for and performed by D & D Tree & Landscaping, Inc., which was licensed. Based on defendant's evidence on his counterclaim that plaintiff performed the work and that defendant wrote his checks out to plaintiff, not to D & D Tree & Landscaping, Inc., the Justice Court properly dismissed plaintiff's cause of action on the ground that he was not licensed to perform home improvement work (see CPLR 3015 [e]; Colorito v. Crown Heating & Cooling, Inc., 6 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50082[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; see also B & F Bldg. Corp. v. Liebig, 76 NY2d 689 [1990]). In addition to defendant's evidence that plaintiff Paul Burns did the work in his individual capacity, defendant also submitted photographs showing that the work done on his property was incomplete. Defendant also testified that he had to hire a company to complete the work and submitted into evidence a paid bill establishing the cost of the work to be completed (see UJCA 1804; see also Rodriguez v. Mitch's Transmission, 32 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51225[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]; Jain v. Rich, 24 Misc 3d 133[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51389[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009] ).

As the record supports the Justice Court's conclusions, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UJCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.