AULICINO v. FOAM AND WASH (2023)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for property damage to two of his vehicles allegedly caused by defendant's car wash. After a nonjury trial, the City Court dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiff had not met his burden of proof. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the court erred in excluding evidence that was provided on a zip drive that he brought to court on the day of the trial.

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” (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 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).

While plaintiff, in his appellate brief, maintains that the court erred in excluding evidence that was uploaded to a zip drive, a review of the trial transcript indicates that plaintiff never sought to admit the videos or documents from the zip drive into evidence, and that plaintiff did not object to the court's refusal to admit the digital copies of the photographs on the zip drive. When offered an adjournment to print out photographs from the zip drive, plaintiff stated that the photographs defendant provided to the court were included on his zip drive and were sufficient. As plaintiff was not “denied the opportunity to fully argue his case,” plaintiff's contention concerning the exclusion of evidence is not grounds for reversal of the judgment (Migliorini v Musumeci, 42 Misc 3d 129[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52159[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]).

Plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or dehors the record, and we do not consider them (see Griffith v Squires, 69 Misc 3d 137[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51300[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Luxor v Dilone, 68 Misc 3d 132[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51005[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]).

As the record demonstrates that the court's determination rendered “substantial justice ․ between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UCCA 1807), we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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