Velez v. Wang

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Velez v. Wang

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 6, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50563(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Velez v. Wang (Velez v. Wang) 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

Velez v. Wang, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

2014-2352 N CJesus Velez, Respondent, April 6, 2016

against

James Wang and Sunrise Dragon International, Inc., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Joy M. Watson, J.), entered May 22, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the notice of appeal, after a nonjury trial, dismissed defendants' counterclaims.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover from his former employer, among other things, pay that had been withheld after plaintiff had quit in the middle of his employment. Defendants interposed counterclaims seeking damages based upon, among other things, expenses allegedly incurred because plaintiff had quit. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,268.95 and dismissed defendants' counterclaims. Defendants' notice of appeal limits their appeal to the dismissal of the counterclaims.

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, 126 [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 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). Contrary to defendants' arguments, the record supports the District Court's determination that defendants did not demonstrate their entitlement to recover money for a deposit with an automobile mechanic or for rental payments that defendants had allegedly made.

In light of the limited appeal, defendants' remaining contention is not properly before this court.

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., and Tolbert, J., concur.

Decision Date: April 06, 2016

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

2014-2352 N CJesus Velez, Respondent, April 6, 2016

against

James Wang and Sunrise Dragon International, Inc., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Joy M. Watson, J.), entered May 22, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the notice of appeal, after a nonjury trial, dismissed defendants' counterclaims.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover from his former employer, among other things, pay that had been withheld after plaintiff had quit in the middle of his employment. Defendants interposed counterclaims seeking damages based upon, among other things, expenses allegedly incurred because plaintiff had quit. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,268.95 and dismissed defendants' counterclaims. Defendants' notice of appeal limits their appeal to the dismissal of the counterclaims.

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, 126 [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 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). Contrary to defendants' arguments, the record supports the District Court's determination that defendants did not demonstrate their entitlement to recover money for a deposit with an automobile mechanic or for rental payments that defendants had allegedly made.

In light of the limited appeal, defendants' remaining contention is not properly before this court.

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., and Tolbert, J., concur.

Decision Date: April 06, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Velez v. Wang, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velez-v-wang-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack