MUGURUZA v. SOLOMOU (2020)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000, plaintiff alleged that defendant, a dog breeder, had sold him a dog which, contrary to defendant's representation, was ineligible to be registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC). At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he had contacted defendant after seeing his advertisement on Craigslist for puppies with certificates from the AKC, that he had purchased a male puppy from defendant in June 2017 for $1,300, and that defendant had told him that it would take six to eight weeks to get “the papers.” Defendant eventually sent plaintiff a certificate from the “North American Purebred Registry, Inc.,” not the AKC. Plaintiff testified that he had sustained damages of $3,700 as a result of being unable to enter the dog into competitions and profitably breed the dog without the AKC registration. Defendant testified that plaintiff knew that the dog he chose to purchase was ineligible to be registered with the AKC when he had purchased it, that the dog plaintiff chose was less expensive than defendant's other dogs because of this ineligibility, and that plaintiff indicated that he did not care whether the dog had AKC certification so long as it had “any type of paper.” Following the trial, the District Court 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” (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v. Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [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).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations and, thus, that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.