DiStefano v. Mughal

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: January 16, 2020
• Docket: 2020 NYSlipOp 50066(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

Giuseppe DiStefano, Respondent,

against

Nadeem Mughal, Defendant, and City Wide Construction & Renovation, Inc., Appellant.

City Wide Construction and Renovation, Inc., appellant pro se. Giuseppe DiStefano, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Scott H. Siller, J.), entered October 3, 2018. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000 as against defendant City Wide Construction & Renovation, Inc.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 for defendants' allegedly defective and incomplete work performed under a contract to renovate plaintiff's residence. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000 as against defendant City Wide Construction & Renovation, Inc. and, upon consent of the parties, dismissed so much of the complaint as was against defendant Nadeem Mughal.

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, 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 [*2]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 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 16, 2020