Frank Hansmann Contr. v. Mozian

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Frank Hansmann Contr. v. Mozian

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 23, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50702(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Frank Hansmann Contr. v. Mozian (Frank Hansmann Contr. v. Mozian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Hansmann Contr. v. Mozian, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Frank Hansmann Contracting, Respondent,

against

June Mozian, etc., Appellant.

Clair & Gjertsen (Ira S. Clair, Esq.), for appellant. Cattarrasa Law Office, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an amended judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Barbara A. Leak, J.), entered August 6, 2014. The amended judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant had failed to pay for the services plaintiff had rendered in connection with defendant's bathroom renovation. Following a nonjury trial, an amended judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,000. On appeal, defendant argues that substantial justice was not rendered between the parties.

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" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 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 [*2]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 (UCCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Accordingly, the amended judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: May 23, 2017

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

Frank Hansmann Contracting, Respondent,

against

June Mozian, etc., Appellant.

Clair & Gjertsen (Ira S. Clair, Esq.), for appellant. Cattarrasa Law Office, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an amended judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Barbara A. Leak, J.), entered August 6, 2014. The amended judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant had failed to pay for the services plaintiff had rendered in connection with defendant's bathroom renovation. Following a nonjury trial, an amended judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,000. On appeal, defendant argues that substantial justice was not rendered between the parties.

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" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 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 [*2]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 (UCCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Accordingly, the amended judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: May 23, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frank Hansmann Contr. v. Mozian, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-hansmann-contr-v-mozian-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack