Thomas Curley Plumbing & Heating Co., LLC v. Mounessa

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: July 12, 2018
• Docket: 2018 NYSlipOp 51118(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

Thomas Curley Plumbing and Heating Co., LLC, Respondent,

against

Joseph Mounessa, Appellant.

Joseph Mounessa, appellant pro se. Thomas Curley Plumbing and Heating Co. LLC, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Paul L. Meli, J.), entered August 24, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,750.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $3,750, representing the unpaid balance due on a contract for the installation of a plumbing and heating system on new construction. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,750.

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" (UDCA 1807-A [a]; see UDCA 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, 511 [1991]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims [*2]Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see UDCA 1807-A; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record supports the District Court's determination, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A [a]; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 12, 2018