Appeal by plaintiff, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Anna R. Anzalone, J.), entered April 15, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $50.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover $3,000 in damages, including towing charges, based on defendant's allegedly negligent repairs. Plaintiff took his vehicle to defendant for repair, stating that the vehicle would not "rev over 3,000 RPMs," and defendant replaced the vehicle's fuel filter. Several days after plaintiff had paid defendant for the repairs and retrieved the vehicle, plaintiff's vehicle
broke down and was towed to a different repair shop, which replaced the fuel pump module. There was no charge for the second repair since the parts and labor were covered by the extended warranty on the vehicle. At trial, plaintiff asserted that defendant's failure to follow the procedures set forth in its own repair manual led to defendant's incorrect diagnosis of his vehicle's problems and improper repairs. Defendant's representative testified that defendant had addressed plaintiff's concerns, since the vehicle was operating when plaintiff drove it from defendant's repair shop, and that, most likely, plaintiff's vehicle would not have been operable if the fuel pump module had been in need of repair at that time. Plaintiff did not dispute defendant's testimony that plaintiff's extended warranty provided for $50 in reimbursement for [*2]towing. In a judgment after trial, the court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $50. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.

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 [1986]; see also Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167 [1976]). Moreover, the deference which an appellate court normally accords to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in a small claims action, given the limited scope of review (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Upon the record presented, plaintiff failed to establish that the court's award was inadequate. Accordingly, the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706 [1997]). As a result, the judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 28, 2008