NY Refinishing, Inc. v. Lucas

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: January 30, 2020
• Docket: 2020 NYSlipOp 50165(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

NY Refinishing, Inc., Respondent,

against

James C. Lucas, Appellant.

James C. Lucas, appellant pro se. NY Refinishing, Inc., respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Richard J. Guertin, J.), entered October 18, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $850.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the principal sum of $850 for unpaid work it had performed for defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff's owner testified that, over a 20-hour period, he had refinished and reglazed defendant's bathtub and shower in a professional and workmanlike manner, and was owed the agreed-upon price of $850. Plaintiff submitted photographs of the finished work. Defendant testified that there were defects in plaintiff's work. Following the trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $850.

In a commercial 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-A [a]; see UCCA 1804-A; 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 [1991]). The deference normally accorded to the credibility determinations of a trial court applies with greater force in the Commercial Claims Part of the court, given the limited scope of review (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the City Court's determination in favor of plaintiff rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804-A, UCCA 1807-A [a]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

TOLBERT, J.P., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 30, 2020