Sunderland v. Kane

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: April 28, 2017
• Docket: 2017 NYSlipOp 50608(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

Linda A. Sunderland, Appellant,

against

Rose Kane, Respondent.

Linda A. Sunderland, appellant pro se. Rose Kane, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered February 18, 2016. 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 the sum of $580, representing the value of four items of plaintiff's clothing which defendant, plaintiff's landlord, allegedly had discarded. 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, 126 [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).

As the court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: April 28, 2017