Hambas v Collier, Halpern, Newberg, Nolletti & Bock, LLP (2013 NY Slip Op 50332(U))

Hambas v Collier, Halpern, Newberg, Nolletti & Bock, LLP

2013 NY Slip Op 50332(U) [38 Misc 3d 147(A)]

Decided on March 1, 2013

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

Martie Hambas, Appellant, —

against

Collier, Halpern, Newberg, Nolletti & Bock, LLP, Respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Eric Press, J.), entered May 2, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $525.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a portion of the attorney's fees she had paid to defendant law firm for representing her in a matrimonial action, until she had discharged the law firm after approximately three months. Plaintiff had paid defendant its retainer fee of $7,500, and defendant had billed her for $8,417.45, but ultimately gave her a "courtesy discount" of $917.45. Plaintiff, claiming that defendant had overcharged her and had billed her improper amounts, seeks to recover $5,000. After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $525. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy. 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]).

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 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]). Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that "substantial justice" requires an increase in the amount awarded (see UCCA 1804, 1807).