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.
Jev-Vern M. JACK, Appellant, v. Dr. Frederic COHEN, Respondent.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking a refund of $3,500 she had paid defendant for dental services he had rendered. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that she is entitled to a refund of the amount she had paid defendant, her dentist, because she had paid for express Invisalign to straighten her teeth, but, at the end of the agreed-upon six-month period, her teeth were not straight. Defendant testified that plaintiff's teeth were straight after she had used the express Invisalign for six months and that her teeth shifted when plaintiff failed to timely return to his office to receive a retainer, as a retainer is a required follow-up to keep the teeth straight. The court viewed photographs of plaintiff's teeth before and after her use of the express Invisalign for six months. Following the trial, the Civil 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” (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v. Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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).
Although plaintiff claimed that defendant did not fulfill his obligation to provide her with straight teeth after using the express Invisalign for six months, the court, after viewing the photographs, dismissed the action, implicitly finding that defendant had provided credible testimony that he had performed his services properly.
As the court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
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: 2017-2209 K C
Decided: April 12, 2019
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)