Kinard v Hamilton Ave. Auto Sales, Inc. (2013 NY Slip Op 50979(U))

Kinard v Hamilton Ave. Auto Sales, Inc.

2013 NY Slip Op 50979(U) [39 Misc 3d 151(A)]

Decided on June 6, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Windy Kinard, Appellant, —

against

Hamilton Avenue Auto Sales, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 6, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,803.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant, a used car dealer, to recover $5,000 in damages based upon her purchase from defendant of a used car which, she claimed, was defective at the time of sale. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $1,803. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.

We note that the statement in lieu of transcript was sufficient to permit proper appellate review (see CPLR 5525 [d]) and, upon such review, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; 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]). This standard applies with [*2]greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125). 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 is devoid of proof that plaintiff's damages were in excess of the amount awarded by the Civil Court, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.