Best v. Progressive Physical Therapy of NY, P.C.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Best v. Progressive Physical Therapy of NY, P.C.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 23, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50407(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Best v. Progressive Physical Therapy of NY, P.C. (Best v. Progressive Physical Therapy of NY, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Best v. Progressive Physical Therapy of NY, P.C., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Vanessa Best, Doing Business as PRECISION HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT, Appellant,

against

Progressive Physical Therapy of New York, P.C. and RICHARD LEICHTER, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (David A. Morris, J.), entered January 8, 2014. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 for services rendered, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the District Court as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action, upon a finding that plaintiff had failed to establish damages.

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, 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).

Here, the District Court, in finding that plaintiff had failed to establish damages, apparently found the defense witness's version of the events to be more credible than plaintiff's, and we find no reason to disturb the court's implicit determination in this regard. Consequently, substantial justice has been done between the parties (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: March 23, 2016

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Vanessa Best, Doing Business as PRECISION HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT, Appellant,

against

Progressive Physical Therapy of New York, P.C. and RICHARD LEICHTER, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (David A. Morris, J.), entered January 8, 2014. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 for services rendered, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the District Court as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action, upon a finding that plaintiff had failed to establish damages.

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, 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).

Here, the District Court, in finding that plaintiff had failed to establish damages, apparently found the defense witness's version of the events to be more credible than plaintiff's, and we find no reason to disturb the court's implicit determination in this regard. Consequently, substantial justice has been done between the parties (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: March 23, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Best v. Progressive Physical Therapy of NY, P.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-v-progressive-physical-therapy-of-ny-pc-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack