Alvarez v Weik (2007 NY Slip Op 50614(U))

Alvarez v Weik

2007 NY Slip Op 50614(U) [15 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on March 26, 2007

Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

ELIZABETH ALVAREZ, Respondent,

against

LEONOR WEIK, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Kevin Kerrigan, J.), dated September 1, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,800 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

In this small claims action seeking to recover a security deposit, defendant, plaintiff's former landlord, filed a counterclaim for property damage and breach of a lease. We find that the trial court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA
1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as the court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This is especially true when findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to credibility of witnesses (Richard's Home Ctr. [*2]& Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]). We find that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment. It is further noted that with regard to defendant's contention that the court improperly awarded plaintiff $1,800 in addition to the check defendant had written for $922.70, the record clearly shows that the original check was not negotiated by plaintiff.