Nkrumah v Bowers (2013 NY Slip Op 52130(U))

Nkrumah v Bowers

2013 NY Slip Op 52130(U) [42 Misc 3d 126(A)]

Decided on December 13, 2013

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Kafahni Nkrumah, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Sharon R. Bowers, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant, as limited by her brief, appeals from that portion of a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2012, after trial, which failed to award her recovery on her counterclaim.

Judgment (Raul Cruz, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2012, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant on her counterclaim in the principle sum of $3,000.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking damages for defendant-appellant's alleged breach of an oral agreement to create a website relating to plaintiff's candidacy for nomination for State Senate, and defendant
interposed a counterclaim for nonpayment of services. After
trial, the court issued a terse written decision awarding "judgment in favor of Defendant whose testimony was more credible than that of Plaintiff"; conspicuously absent from the court's written decision was any indication as to whether the "judgment" referred to related to the main action, the counterclaim, or both. A judgment was thereafter issued dismissing plaintiff's main action, a judgment not appealed by plaintiff, but no formal disposition was forthcoming in connection with defendant's counterclaim.

Exercising our authority to review the complete record and render judgment warranted by the facts (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]), and adopting the trial court's own express credibility findings, we award judgment in favor of defendant on the counterclaim. The record shows, and it was essentially undisputed, that the parties verbally agreed that defendant would be paid at the rate of $600 per month for information technology services rendered by defendant in connection with two of plaintiff's political campaigns, and
that there was an outstanding balance owed by plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,000. [*2]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 13, 2013