Golston v. Clemente

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: August 16, 2019
• Docket: 2019 NYSlipOp 51355(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

Juanita Golston, Respondent,

against

Geraldine Clemente, Appellant.

Geraldine Clemente, appellant pro se. Juanita Golston, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered June 28, 2016. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $650.

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

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the cost of clearing debris that had resulted from defendant's faulty repairs to a boundary wall, and for the removal of tree roots that had grown onto plaintiff's property, causing pavement damage. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the cost of removing tree branches allegedly thrown onto her property by plaintiff. After a nonjury trial, the court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $650 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. As limited by the brief, defendant appeals from so much of the judgment as awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $650.

In a small claims action, this court's 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]). 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 [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 (see CCA 1804, 1807).

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 16, 2019