Hollinshead v Leamah (2014 NY Slip Op 50227(U))

Hollinshead v Leamah

2014 NY Slip Op 50227(U) [42 Misc 3d 142(A)]

Decided on February 7, 2014

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

Khalia Hollinshead, Respondent,

against

Eric Leamah, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered March 1, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,800.

At a nonjury trial of this small claims action to recover sums allegedly owed, the parties testified that they had previously cohabited, and that there came a time when plaintiff paid some of defendant's bills in an attempt to improve defendant's credit rating. Defendant in effect admitted that he owed plaintiff $1,500, based on plaintiff's payment of an attorney's bill that had been charged to defendant. The parties gave contradictory testimony as to whether defendant had agreed to pay $1,000 towards the repair of a broken flight of stairs, and as to whether defendant should be wholly responsible for a July 2011 Cablevision bill. Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,800, and defendant appeals. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1807).

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, given the limited scope of review (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). As the record supports the Civil Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.