Kakihira v. 7-Eleven Store

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: May 16, 2017
• Docket: 2017 NYSlipOp 50640(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

<partyblock>

<br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Chikako Kakihira, Plaintiff-Appellant,

<br><br>against<br><br>7-Eleven Store, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br>

<p>Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony Cannataro, J.), entered November 1, 2016, after trial, in favor of the defendant dismissing the action.</p>

<p>Per Curiam.</p>

<p>Judgment (Anthony Cannataro, J.), entered November 1, 2016, affirmed, without costs. </p>

<p>The record establishes that the trial court properly applied the appropriate rules and principles of substantive law and accomplished "substantial justice" in awarding judgment in defendant's favor dismissing the action (CCA  1804, 1807). A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the sandwich purchased from defendant's store was defective and that she became ill as a result of its consumption (<i>see Williams v White Castle Sys.,</i> 4 AD3d 161, 162 [2004]<i>; Valenti v Great Atl. &amp; Pac. Tea Co.</i>, 207 AD2d 340 [1994]). Particularly in the context of small claims cases, the decision of the fact-finding court is entitled to deference where it rests in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], <i>lv dismissed</i> 95 NY2d 898 [2000]).</p>

<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p>

<br>I concur I concur I concur

<br>Decision Date: May 16, 2017

<br><br><div align="center">

<form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml">

<input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List">

</form>

</div>

</partyblock>