[*1]
Bal v Sinyavsky
2005 NYSlipOp 50988(U)
Decided on June 30, 2005
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on June 30, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P.
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570545/04

John Bal, (d/b/a Mergent Services), Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Alexander Sinyavsky, Defendant-Respondent.


Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court, New York County, entered on or about May 20, 2002 after trial (Matthew F. Cooper, J.) in favor of defendant dismissing the action.


PER CURIAM:

Judgment entered on or about May 20, 2002 (Matthew F. Cooper, J.) affirmed, without costs.

A judgment rendered in the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court will be sustained on appeal unless it is shown that "substantial justice" has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898). Applying that limited review standard here, and giving due deference to the trial court's express factual findings, including the court's stated concerns over the "compromised" nature of plaintiff's credibility, we sustain the post trial dismissal of the small claims action. There was no competent proof that plaintiff sustained compensable damages as a result of defendant's alleged contractual breach. As the trial court noted in its written decision, "(t)here was no evidence adduced to show that [plaintiff] ever had the [*2]merchandise [contracted for] in his possession or had purchased it from a distributor for sale to defendant."

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: June 30, 2005