White v. Campbell-Roberts

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. Campbell-Roberts

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 27, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50312(U)

StatusPublished

This text of White v. Campbell-Roberts (White v. Campbell-Roberts) 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

White v. Campbell-Roberts, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Mary White, Appellant,

against

Dorian Campbell-Roberts, Respondent.

Mary White, appellant pro se. Dorian Campbell-Roberts, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Scott H. Siller, J.), entered November 7, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $254.44, alleging that defendant converted certain of plaintiff's possessions that plaintiff had brought to a church affair. After a nonjury trial, the District 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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; 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]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims [*2]Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

The case primarily presented issues of credibility, and we find no basis to disturb the court's determination of these issues. Consequently, the trial court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: February 27, 2020

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

Mary White, Appellant,

against

Dorian Campbell-Roberts, Respondent.

Mary White, appellant pro se. Dorian Campbell-Roberts, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Scott H. Siller, J.), entered November 7, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $254.44, alleging that defendant converted certain of plaintiff's possessions that plaintiff had brought to a church affair. After a nonjury trial, the District 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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; 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]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims [*2]Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

The case primarily presented issues of credibility, and we find no basis to disturb the court's determination of these issues. Consequently, the trial court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: February 27, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

White v. Campbell-Roberts, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-campbell-roberts-nyappterm-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack