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.
Olalekan PEDRO, Appellant, v. Phillip BOOKER and Veronica Phillip-Booker, Respondents.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $4,850 for nonpayment of rent, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court which, after a nonjury trial, 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]). 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).
It is uncontested that the parties had signed a stipulation in a prior summary proceeding which required defendants to vacate the apartment and surrender the keys by December 31, 2016. While plaintiff testified at trial that defendants had failed to vacate the apartment or surrender the keys by December 31, 2016, defendant Phillip Booker testified that defendants had moved out on December 31st. The Civil Court, which had the opportunity to evaluate the evidence, found that the testimony of defendant Phillip Booker was more credible than that of plaintiff. As the court's determination is supported by the record, the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807). We note that this court does not consider any evidence which is dehors the record (see Chimarios v. Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, J.P., PESCE and SIEGAL, 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: 2018-656 K C
Decided: August 16, 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)