SPACE FLOORING CABINETS INC v. VALE (2020)

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (David M. Hawkins, J.), entered January 9, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $5,000 on her counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the principal sum of $3,280.78, alleging that defendant had failed to pay plaintiff, pursuant to a written contract, for the installation of custom kitchen cabinets. Defendant counterclaimed to recover $5,000 for the cost of correcting the allegedly improper installation of the cabinets. After a nonjury trial, the court determined that the cabinets had not been installed properly, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $5,000 on her counterclaim.

Appellate review of a commercial claims judgment is limited to determining whether “substantial justice has ․ been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (CCA 1807-A [a]; see CCA 1804-A; Ross v. Friedman, 269 AD2d 584, 584 [2000]; Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). The determination of a trial court as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the 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, 564 [1992]; Kincade v. Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court, given the limited standard of review (see Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant established that plaintiff had improperly installed the custom kitchen cabinets. Consequently, the court properly dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and determined that defendant was entitled to recover on her counterclaim. As plaintiff does not contest the amount awarded to defendant on her counterclaim, we find no basis to disturb the judgment, which provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804-A, 1807-A [a]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.