PORTER v. GIGANTE (2019)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims breach of contract action to recover the principal sum of $2,500, plaintiff alleges that he entered into two contracts with defendant to prepare a report for the New York City Department of Buildings (NYCDOB) and that defendant did not pay him in full for the work he had completed. Defendant argues that plaintiff did not fully satisfy the terms of the contract and the amended contract, and, thus, plaintiff was not entitled to the final payment. After a nonjury trial, the court dismissed the action, finding that plaintiff's testimony was not credible and that plaintiff had not established that he had completed the necessary work under the contracts to receive any more money than he had already been paid.

In a small claims action, this court's 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]). 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 agree with the Civil Court's determination that plaintiff did not establish that he is owed any more money than he has already been paid. The amended contract included provisions requiring plaintiff to prepare and file a certificate of correction and stated that he would only be entitled to the final payment of “$750 + $3,750.00” “upon acceptance and sign off of the NYCDOB.” Plaintiff, a licensed engineer who had drafted the amended contract, obviously was familiar with the certificate of correction form and knew what its preparation and filing entailed. The amended contract was not ambiguous and clearly stated the terms of the agreement and the payment schedule. As it was undisputed that plaintiff had not prepared and filed a certificate of correction, plaintiff failed to establish that defendant had breached the amended contract by failing to pay plaintiff the final payment set forth therein. As the Civil Court's determination dismissing the action is supported by the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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