Langer v Typhoon of N.Y., Inc. (2012 NY Slip Op 51075(U))

Langer v Typhoon of N.Y., Inc.

2012 NY Slip Op 51075(U) [35 Misc 3d 148(A)]

Decided on June 11, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Randy Langer and VETERAN ELECTRIC, Respondents, —

against

TYPHOON OF NEW YORK, INC. Doing Business as FULL MOON RESTAURANT, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Brian Hansbury, J.), entered March 14, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,789.90 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $2,789.90, representing the balance due for electrical work performed at defendant's restaurant. Defendant interposed a counterclaim to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging that it had to pay other contractors to complete the work which plaintiffs were required to perform. After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,789.90 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). [*2]

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 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 a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). As the record supports the City Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.