Brown v. Gibson

77 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 51368(U)

Opinion

Brown v Gibson (2022 NY Slip Op 51368(U)) [*1]

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 § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 22, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : JERRY GARGUILO, P.J., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ
2022-113 N C

Francis E. Brown, Appellant,

against

James Gibson and Gibson's Complete Landscaping & Design, Respondents.

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:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 22, 2022