Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered August 10, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action to recover the sum of $4,953.43 for breach of contract. At the nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that, in reliance upon alleged false representations made by defendant about her credentials and the accreditation of her studio by the Pilates Method Alliance, she signed up for training at defendant's studio to become a certified Pilates instructor. She paid defendant $4,953.43 for this training, which included attending 108 hours of lectures, as well as observation, student teaching, and self-practice. After plaintiff had participated in the program for a number of months, she was expelled from defendant's studio. Defendant returned to plaintiff such payments as defendant calculated were unused, and told plaintiff that once she completed her student training hours elsewhere, she could return to defendant's studio to test for final certification as a Pilates teacher.

Plaintiff stated her belief that defendant's primary reason for expelling her was her refusal to sign the "model release," which would have authorized defendant to use plaintiff's photograph for publicity purposes without compensation. She also testified that she objected to the fee structure set forth in an "independent contractor agreement" she had refused to sign, under which, plaintiff claimed, defendant was to be paid $250 per session by students whom plaintiff would bring into the studio, while plaintiff would receive nothing.

Defendant testified that her reason for terminating plaintiff's training was not her refusal to sign the "model release," but rather plaintiff's refusal to sign the "independent contractor agreement," which was used, inter alia, to insulate defendant from liability, coupled with [*2]plaintiff's lack of cooperation in scheduling students to use her studio and plaintiff's refusal to commit to a schedule.

Following trial, judgment was entered in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

Although the appellate record is devoid of documentary evidence, plaintiff, on appeal, nevertheless relies on numerous documents attached to her brief.

A review of the record indicates that substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807). The deference which an appellate court normally accords to a trial court's credibility determinations "applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part" of the court (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). A small claims judgment may not be reversed absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the court's conclusions, or that the court's determination is otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620, 621 [1986]). This standard is unaffected by the fact that a litigant proceeds pro se (see Sloninski v Weston, 232 AD2d 913, 914 [1996]; accord Matter of Hanehan v Hanehan, 8 AD3d 712, 714 [2004]). Review is only available of those issues which were raised in the trial court (see e.g. Lichtman v Grossbard, 73 NY2d 792, 794 [1988]), and is confined to the facts in the record and arguments based thereon (Gagen v Kipany Prods., 289 AD2d 844 [2001]; Ughetta v Barile, 210 AD2d 562, 564 [1994]; Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Plaintiff, who proceeded pro se at trial, now contends that she failed to submit certain documents into evidence based on advice she received from a court attorney. Such allegation was not made to the trial court, and this court will not review documents which are dehors the record (Chimarios, 152 AD2d 508).

There is no documentary evidence of record either of defendant's representations to plaintiff regarding her credentials or concerning the alleged lack of veracity of those representations. In the absence of documentary evidence, the trial court necessarily based its decision to dismiss the action upon its determination with respect to the credibility of the witnesses. We find no basis for disturbing the trial court's decision with regard thereto.

Despite plaintiff's argument that defendant did not permit her to complete the training for which she enrolled at defendant's studio, there was evidence before the trial court that defendant's action was justified because plaintiff failed to abide by the studio's rules. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court's finding that defendant's action was justified, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Plaintiff further contends that this court should reverse the judgment because of defendant's alleged lack of a license to operate a school. As there was no evidence proffered at trial on this subject, we need not address the issue pertaining to defendant's alleged lack of, or need for, a license.

Finally, plaintiff asserts on appeal that she is entitled to a refund of additional sums she paid to outside providers for instruction in anatomy that defendant failed to
provide. Again, the record is devoid of any evidence on this subject, and, thus, there is no basis for upsetting the Civil Court's determination.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 20, 2009