| Jongmin Kim v Younus |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 52384(U) [38 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on December 20, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second
District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered July 12, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial,
awarded plaintiff the principal sum of only $2,800, and awarded defendant the principal
sum of $1,000 on his counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover from defendant, his former tenant, the sum of $4,990.10 for property damage to his house. Defendant interposed a counterclaim seeking the return of the balance of his security deposit in the amount of $3,800. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,800, to be satisfied from the security deposit held by plaintiff, and awarded defendant the principal sum of $1,000 on his 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 (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).
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 [*2]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 a 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 trial court's determinations, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
LaSalle, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 20, 2012