Sequino v Frangoulis (2013 NY Slip Op 51392(U))

Sequino v Frangoulis

2013 NY Slip Op 51392(U) [40 Misc 3d 138(A)]

Decided on August 8, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

Frank Sequino, Respondent, —

against

George Frangoulis, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered March 12, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,210.

Plaintiff, an architect, commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $2,210 for services rendered. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff's invoices were entered into evidence. Defendant admitted that plaintiff had performed the work, which consisted of drawing plans for a property, but testified that the plans were not usable, and, as a result, defendant had offered to pay only half the sum which plaintiff had been seeking. After trial, the Civil Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,210, finding that plaintiff had established that defendant was indebted to him for the full amount of the claim.

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, 126 [2000]). 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 evaluate their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]).

Here, based on the evidence presented, the Civil Court found plaintiff's testimony to be more credible than that of defendant. Since the court's determination was amply supported by the evidence, we conclude that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807). We note that we do not consider defendant's assertion, made for the first time on appeal, which, not having been raised in the Civil Court, is dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).