Bricault v. Lockwood

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bricault v. Lockwood

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 6, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50556(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Bricault v. Lockwood (Bricault v. Lockwood) 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

Bricault v. Lockwood, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Richard Bricault and Nancy Bricault, Respondents, April 6, 2016

against

Andrew Lockwood and College Funding Specialists, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Helen Voutsinas, J.), entered on October 21, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,695.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover $1,695 of the total sum paid to defendant College Funding Specialists for consultations with its owner, defendant Andrew Lockwood, regarding college financial aid for their daughter and for assistance in the preparation and filing of college financial aid forms. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court found in plaintiffs' favor, and a judgment awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,695 was entered on October 21, 2011.

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).

As the judgment in this case provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: April 06, 2016

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

Richard Bricault and Nancy Bricault, Respondents, April 6, 2016

against

Andrew Lockwood and College Funding Specialists, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Helen Voutsinas, J.), entered on October 21, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,695.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover $1,695 of the total sum paid to defendant College Funding Specialists for consultations with its owner, defendant Andrew Lockwood, regarding college financial aid for their daughter and for assistance in the preparation and filing of college financial aid forms. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court found in plaintiffs' favor, and a judgment awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,695 was entered on October 21, 2011.

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).

As the judgment in this case provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: April 06, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bricault v. Lockwood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bricault-v-lockwood-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack