White v. Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51748(U)

StatusPublished

This text of White v. Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge (White v. Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge) 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. Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Craig M. White, Appellant,

against

Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge, Respondent.

Craig M. White, appellant pro se. Cye E. Ross, Esq., for respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Paul L. Meli, J.), entered September 29, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $423.64.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,595.67 for payments he had made to defendant to repair his vehicle, which repairs allegedly had been unnecessary. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $423.64, representing his payment for the third of the three repairs.

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]). 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 plaintiff failed to prove that he had sustained damages greater than the prinicipal sum [*2]of $423.64 awarded to him, we find no basis to conclude that substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807) requires an increase in the amount awarded to plaintiff.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 29, 2018

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

Craig M. White, Appellant,

against

Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge, Respondent.

Craig M. White, appellant pro se. Cye E. Ross, Esq., for respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Paul L. Meli, J.), entered September 29, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $423.64.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,595.67 for payments he had made to defendant to repair his vehicle, which repairs allegedly had been unnecessary. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $423.64, representing his payment for the third of the three repairs.

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]). 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 plaintiff failed to prove that he had sustained damages greater than the prinicipal sum [*2]of $423.64 awarded to him, we find no basis to conclude that substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807) requires an increase in the amount awarded to plaintiff.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 29, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

White v. Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-westbury-jeep-chrysler-dodge-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack