Zabary v. Long Is. Veterinary Specialist, PLLC

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zabary v. Long Is. Veterinary Specialist, PLLC

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 16, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50809(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Zabary v. Long Is. Veterinary Specialist, PLLC (Zabary v. Long Is. Veterinary Specialist, PLLC) 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

Zabary v. Long Is. Veterinary Specialist, PLLC, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Arlene Zabary, Appellant,

against

Long Island Veterinary Specialist, PLLC, Respondent.

Arlene Zabary, appellant pro se. Connick, Myers, Haas & McNamee, PLLC (Barbara A. Myers of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Paul L. Meli, J.), entered December 5, 2017. 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 $5,000 which she had allegedly overpaid to defendant for services it had rendered in the care and treatment of her dog. 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, 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 [*2]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). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination, as it provided 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., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 16, 2019

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

Arlene Zabary, Appellant,

against

Long Island Veterinary Specialist, PLLC, Respondent.

Arlene Zabary, appellant pro se. Connick, Myers, Haas & McNamee, PLLC (Barbara A. Myers of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Paul L. Meli, J.), entered December 5, 2017. 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 $5,000 which she had allegedly overpaid to defendant for services it had rendered in the care and treatment of her dog. 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, 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 [*2]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). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination, as it provided 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., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 16, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zabary v. Long Is. Veterinary Specialist, PLLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zabary-v-long-is-veterinary-specialist-pllc-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack