Musella v. Tufano

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Musella v. Tufano

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 8, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 51082(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Musella v. Tufano (Musella v. Tufano) 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

Musella v. Tufano, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Susan C. Musella, Appellant,

against

Carmine Tufano and DEBRA TUFANO, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Douglas J. Lerose, J.), entered October 2, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover veterinary expenses incurred as a result of defendants' dog having attacked plaintiff's dog. Following a nonjury trial, the District 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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 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 failed to establish a prima facie case that defendants' dog had vicious propensities or that defendants had knowledge of their dog's vicious propensities (see generally Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d 546, 550 [2009]; Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 596 [2006]; Sers v Manasia, 280 AD2d 539, 540 [2001]; Mastroeni v Graziano, 19 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50510[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). As the District Court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 08, 2016

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

Susan C. Musella, Appellant,

against

Carmine Tufano and DEBRA TUFANO, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Douglas J. Lerose, J.), entered October 2, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover veterinary expenses incurred as a result of defendants' dog having attacked plaintiff's dog. Following a nonjury trial, the District 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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 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 failed to establish a prima facie case that defendants' dog had vicious propensities or that defendants had knowledge of their dog's vicious propensities (see generally Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d 546, 550 [2009]; Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 596 [2006]; Sers v Manasia, 280 AD2d 539, 540 [2001]; Mastroeni v Graziano, 19 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50510[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). As the District Court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 08, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Musella v. Tufano, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/musella-v-tufano-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack