Coffey v McNamara Fireplace & Stove Showroom, LLC (2013 NY Slip Op 50842(U))

Coffey v McNamara Fireplace & Stove Showroom, LLC

2013 NY Slip Op 50842(U) [39 Misc 3d 145(A)]

Decided on May 13, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

Kate Coffey, Respondent, —

against

McNamara Fireplace & Stove Showroom, LLC, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Paul B. Phinney, III, J.), entered July 26, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,800.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for water damage to her house. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that, upon defendant's installation of a fireplace and flue in her house, the waterproofing was defective, causing the roof to leak. Plaintiff presented two itemized estimates of the reasonable value and necessity of the repairs (UJCA 1804). Defendant's employee testified that, after he had installed a silicone seal around the storm collar and piping, someone had removed the collar and improperly reinstalled it. Following trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,800.

In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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]). Furthermore, the [*2]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]). 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). As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.