[*1]
Castano v Montalbano
2014 NY Slip Op 51145(U) [44 Misc 3d 133(A)]
Decided on July 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on July 7, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and GARGUILO, JJ.


Tony Castano, Respondent,

against

Frank Montalbano, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District

(C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), entered January 2, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,679.53 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $2,679.53, representing the undisputed balance of monies due under a contract for the renovation of defendant's bathroom. Defendant interposed a counterclaim to recover the sum of $4,679.53 for plaintiff's allegedly unworkmanlike renovation. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,679.53 and dismissed the


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 UDCA 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]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record supports the District Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: July 07, 2014