Gilpin v Gibson (2010 NY Slip Op 50377(U))

Gilpin v Gibson

2010 NY Slip Op 50377(U) [26 Misc 3d 142(A)]

Decided on March 8, 2010

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Milton Gilpin, Appellant,

against

Marlon Gibson and Elisa Foster, Respondents.

Appeal from a decision of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated October 14, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered October 23, 2008 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action seeking $4,415.17 for payment of a loan. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found that plaintiff had established the existence of the loan, but that defendant Marlon Gibson had proven that he had paid the loan in full, in cash, on the day after he had executed the promissory note in question. The District Court based its finding in part on documentary evidence showing that defendant had withdrawn the amount of the loan in cash from his and his fiance's bank accounts the day after the note had been executed, and in part on the credibility of the witnesses at trial. We affirm.

The decision of a 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 e.g. 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 e.g. Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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 e.g. Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]).

As the court's findings and conclusions are supported by the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. [*2]