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.
Michael C. LANDRUM, Respondent, v. Donna SAMUELS, Appellant.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $1,990, which, he asserts, is the balance of a brokerage commission he is owed from defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff asserted that he had been the real estate broker on the rental of an apartment to defendant; that he had entered into a written agreement with defendant pursuant to which defendant had agreed to pay him a brokerage fee of $2,050; and that there remained a balance due of $1,990. Defendant's landlord confirmed the accuracy of plaintiff's testimony. Defendant denied the authenticity of her signature on the agreement, and denied having agreed to pay a brokerage commission to plaintiff. She also asserted that the apartment she had rented had defects which affected its habitability. Following the trial, the District Court awarded judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,990.
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] ). 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).
Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2016–345 N C
Decided: April 05, 2018
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)