Paul-Brown v Graham (2014 NY Slip Op 50639(U))

Paul-Brown v Graham

2014 NY Slip Op 50639(U) [43 Misc 3d 134(A)]

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

Carla Paul-Brown Doing Business as J & C BEAUTY SUPPLIES STORE, Respondent,

against

Joshua Graham Doing Business as T & G BEAUTY SUPPLIES STORE, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered June 7, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,750 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for breach of contract, alleging that defendant had failed to pay the balance owed on the sale of plaintiff's business. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $5,000, based on alleged damage to items in the store. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,750 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. 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, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000] Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [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]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see CCA 1804, 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As there is support in the record for the Civil Court's conclusions that plaintiff had established the balance owed and that defendant had failed to prove his counterclaim, the judgment is affirmed.