Grate v. S.U.S. Majestic

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Grate v. S.U.S. Majestic

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 6, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51088(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Grate v. S.U.S. Majestic (Grate v. S.U.S. Majestic) 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

Grate v. S.U.S. Majestic, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

John Grate, Appellant,

against

S.U.S. Majestic, Respondent.

John Grate, appellant pro se. Timothy M. McCarthy, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 19, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for the alleged loss of personal property from his single room occupancy residence following an incident involving the police. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

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).

Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff has not demonstrated what items were allegedly stolen, the value of those items or that defendant was responsible for any loss that [*2]plaintiff may have suffered. Consequently, the judgment in favor of defendant provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 06, 2018

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

John Grate, Appellant,

against

S.U.S. Majestic, Respondent.

John Grate, appellant pro se. Timothy M. McCarthy, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 19, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for the alleged loss of personal property from his single room occupancy residence following an incident involving the police. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

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).

Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff has not demonstrated what items were allegedly stolen, the value of those items or that defendant was responsible for any loss that [*2]plaintiff may have suffered. Consequently, the judgment in favor of defendant provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 06, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Grate v. S.U.S. Majestic, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grate-v-sus-majestic-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack