MORSY v. STRACHAN (2019)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $4,970, plaintiff testified, at a nonjury trial, that, with an entity known as Deals and Wheels acting as an intermediary, he had sold a used car to defendant, pursuant to a contract which required defendant to make monthly payments towards the purchase of the car and to pay for insurance on the car, and which provided that, in the event that defendant ceased making such payments, she would be required to return the car. Defendant acquired the car in May 2016 and returned it to Deals and Wheels on October 31, 2016. Plaintiff testified that, on November 1, 2016, when he regained possession of the car, it was in very poor condition; additionally, its registration and a remote control device were missing. Plaintiff showed the court bills he had incurred in making repairs to the car between November and December 2016. Defendant claimed that she had returned the car to Deals and Wheels in good condition. Following the trial, the action was dismissed.

In a small claims action, our review of 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, 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 (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.