McCarthy v Brittingham (2013 NY Slip Op 51452(U))

McCarthy v Brittingham

2013 NY Slip Op 51452(U) [40 Misc 3d 140(A)]

Decided on August 21, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

Lorraine McCarthy, Respondent, —

against

Carolynn Brittingham Also Known as CAROLYNN BANK Also Known as CAROLYNN COHAN, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Philip Goglas, J.), entered December 6, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $400 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $400, which she claimed she had lent to defendant and that defendant had not paid back. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $1,142.36, alleging that plaintiff had failed to return certain personal property belonging to defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $400, finding plaintiff's testimony credible, and dismissed defendant's counterclaim, finding that defendant had not proven her cause of action against plaintiff.

In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 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 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 amply supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Tolbert, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: August 21, 2013