Brottman v. G. Fried Carpet & Design Ctr.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Brottman v. G. Fried Carpet & Design Ctr.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 10, 2016·No. 2016 NYSlipOp 50176(U)·Published

Opinion

Stanley Brottman, Appellant,

against

G. Fried Carpet and Design Center, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Colin F. O'Donnell, J.), entered February 28, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking recovery of his $1,641 deposit for wall-to-wall carpeting. Plaintiff had rejected delivery of the carpet, claiming that it was a different color from the one he had ordered. After a nonjury trial, at which defendant's employee testified that the carpet ordered and the carpet delivered were the same, and the court compared the two, the court dismissed plaintiff's 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 provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126), as plaintiff failed to establish his right to recover his deposit (see generally UCC 2-718 [2] [a]; 3 [a]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: February 10, 2016

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

Stanley Brottman, Appellant,

against

G. Fried Carpet and Design Center, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Colin F. O'Donnell, J.), entered February 28, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking recovery of his $1,641 deposit for wall-to-wall carpeting. Plaintiff had rejected delivery of the carpet, claiming that it was a different color from the one he had ordered. After a nonjury trial, at which defendant's employee testified that the carpet ordered and the carpet delivered were the same, and the court compared the two, the court dismissed plaintiff's 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 provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126), as plaintiff failed to establish his right to recover his deposit (see generally UCC 2-718 [2] [a]; 3 [a]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: February 10, 2016

Brottman v. G. Fried Carpet & Design Ctr., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Brottman v. G. Fried Carpet & Design Ctr. (Brottman v. G. Fried Carpet & Design Ctr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related