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.
Ebonee COLLENS, Respondent, v. Dr. John W.S. SAYEGH, Appellant.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, defendant appeals from a judgment which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,162.50, representing the security deposit she had paid to defendant, her former landlord.
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” (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 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).
Defendant's argument as to “venue” lacks merit, as this was a small claims case brought pursuant to UCCA 207 and UCCA 1801, and defendant conceded that he maintains an office in Westchester County (see UCCA 1801; Payne v. Genato, 29 Misc. 3d 1229[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 52086[U] [Rye City Ct. 2010]; Germain v. CNY Mgt. Corp., 121 Misc. 2d 871, 871 [Albany City Ct. 1983]). Defendant's argument that he was the improper party to be sued is raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it (see Crowder v. LaGrande, 36 Misc. 3d 140[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51488[U] [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists 2012] ). Finally, as the record supports the court's determination that plaintiff established her entitlement to the return of her security deposit, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see UCCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
RUDERMAN, J.P., TOLBERT and EMERSON, 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: 2018-1799 W C
Decided: August 08, 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)