| Thompson v LoMonaco |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 52158(U) [42 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on December 17, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess
County (Irene McAliney, J.), entered February 7, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury
trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,275.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
At a nonjury trial in this small claims action, defendant testified that plaintiff had paid him $1,275 as a security deposit for a premises defendant was to rent to plaintiff, but the parties had never executed a lease. The Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,275.
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, 545 [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 125, 126 [2000]). Here, defendant indicated at trial that the security deposit was intended to secure the payment of rent under the proposed lease as plaintiff did not have a "referral" from a prior landlord. Contrary to defendant's contention on appeal, no evidence was adduced establishing that the payment was for the purpose of taking the premises off the rental market and to hold it for plaintiff until she executed a lease. Since the court's determination was amply supported by the evidence adduced at trial, we conclude that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. [*2]
Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 17, 2013