Dearce v. Wu

73 Misc. 3d 143(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 51209(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: December 10, 2021
• Docket: 2019-1445 Q C
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Dearce v Wu (2021 NY Slip Op 51209(U)) [*1]

Dearce v Wu

2021 NY Slip Op 51209(U) [73 Misc 3d 143(A)]

Decided on December 10, 2021

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 10, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : DAVID ELLIOT, J.P., MICHELLE WESTON, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2019-1445 Q C

Sylvia L. Dearce, Respondent,

against

Bixian Wu, Appellant.

Bixian Wu, appellant pro se. Sylvia L. Dearce, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ira R. Greenberg, J.), entered March 21, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,012 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant, her former landlord, to recover the sum of $3,460 for property damage, failure to return property and loss of property. Defendant interposed a counterclaim seeking $5,000 for property damage and failure to pay rent. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,012 and dismissed the 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 law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). 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 court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

ELLIOT, J.P., WESTON and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 10, 2021