Chawla v. Taming Ju

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: June 7, 2019
• Docket: 2019 NYSlipOp 50924(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

Amarjit Chawla, Respondent,

against

Taming Ju, Appellant.

Taming Ju, appellant pro se. Amarjit Chawla, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered October 17, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,072.20 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $4,000, for, among other things, weekly lease payments allegedly due from defendant for his use of plaintiff's taxicab. Defendant interposed a counterclaim to recover the principal sum of $1,000 for monies allegedly withheld by plaintiff. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that defendant had used plaintiff's taxicab for three weeks and three days without paying him the weekly lease rate of $585 and that he had incurred a tax penalty for which defendant is responsible. Plaintiff submitted a copy of the lease agreement establishing the weekly lease rate of $585. Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,072.20 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. Defendant appeals.

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 [*2]law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 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).

Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the evidence presented supports the Civil Court's determination. Consequently, we find the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

SIEGAL, J.P., PESCE and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 07, 2019