| Brown v Gibson |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 51368(U) [77 Misc 3d 139(A)] |
| Decided on December 22, 2022 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Frances E. Brown, appellant pro se. James Gibson, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (David Wright, J.), entered January 19, 2022. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $2,000, plaintiff alleged that defendants did not fulfill their obligations under a landscaping contract and rendered their services in a defective manner. After a nonjury 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]). 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).
Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, [*2]1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
GARGUILO, P.J., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.
ENTER: