Rimpel v. 56 N. Long Beach, LLC

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: April 25, 2019
• Docket: 2019 NYSlipOp 50629(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

Monette Rimpel, Respondent,

against

56 North Long Beach, LLC, Appellant.

The Law Offices of Barbara Lee Ford (Barbara Lee Ford of counsel), for appellant. Monette Rimpel, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Darlene D. Harris, J.), entered March 31, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,275.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000, representing a security deposit and rent she had given to defendant when she had agreed to rent an apartment from defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,275, without making any express findings of fact.

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]). 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 [*2]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 the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807). The court's determination in favor of plaintiff is supported by the record and is based in part on its implicit credibility findings.

We note that this court will not consider any evidence which is dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 25, 2019