Royal Enter. & Dev., Inc. v Willer (2013 NY Slip Op 52064(U))

Royal Enter. & Dev., Inc. v Willer

2013 NY Slip Op 52064(U) [41 Misc 3d 144(A)]

Decided on December 9, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

Royal Enterprise & Development, Inc. Respondent, —

against

Justin Willer, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered July 20, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, representing the unpaid balance allegedly due on a construction contract. Defendant counterclaimed to recover for damage allegedly caused by plaintiff's work pursuant to an unrelated agreement. At a nonjury trial, defendant offered evidence that plaintiff's claim should be set off by various items. After trial, the Civil Court found that defendant had proven his entitlement to $2,500 in setoffs, and so awarded plaintiff only $2,500 on its claim. The court further found that defendant had not substantiated his counterclaim, and dismissed it. Defendant appeals. 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 (see CCA 1804-A, 1807-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). [*2]

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]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see CCA 1807-A; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). In this case, there is ample support in the record for the Civil Court's conclusions that defendant was not entitled to any additional setoffs to the contract balance, and that defendant had failed to prove that plaintiff had caused the damage claimed by defendant.