CURTIN v. HUMMEL (2020)

ORDERED that the judgment, is affirmed, without costs; and it is further,

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendants, his former tenants, to recover the principal sum of $4,755 for, among other things, damage allegedly caused by defendants to the premises, including a washer and a dryer. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found that defendants were responsible for the damage to the washer and dryer and, after applying a credit, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $140.11.

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 [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 [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).

As the record supports the District Court's determination that defendants were responsible for the damage to the washer and dryer, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. As the cross appeal has not been timely perfected, it is dismissed as abandoned.

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