GS v. LLC (2026)

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $2,850; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,800, which, plaintiff alleged, was the outstanding sum due for subcontracting work it had provided defendant, a general contractor. At a nonjury trial, the parties agreed that plaintiff had completed a project for defendant with a price of $4,050, toward which defendant had paid $4,000. Plaintiff presented testimony that it had also completed a second project for defendant with a price of $3,800, toward which defendant had paid $1,000, and a third project with a price of $2,950, which defendant had not paid. Defendant denied that it had engaged plaintiff to complete anything except the $4,050 project and asserted that the $1,000 payment applied to the $3,800 project was an "accident." After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court (Mark M. Kagan, J.) awarded plaintiff a judgment in the principal sum of $2,800, representing the balance due on the $3,800 project. Plaintiff appeals from the May 27, 2025 judgment on the ground of inadequacy.

In a commercial 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" (CCA 1807-A [a]; see CCA 1804-A; 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 Commercial Claims Part of the court, (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Here, the court implicitly resolved issues of credibility as to the $2,950 project in defendant's favor, and we find no basis to disturb that determination. In light of the parties' agreement that defendant had paid only $4,000 toward the $4,050 project, however, substantial justice will be rendered (see CCA 1804-A, 1807-A [a]) by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff by $50, to the principal sum of $2,850.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $2,850.

BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and LIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: September 18, 2026