| Ashevitte Furniture, Inc. v Baltachi |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 50071(U) [46 Misc 3d 138(A)] |
| Decided on January 15, 2015 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered February 13, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $813.97 and dismissed the counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this commercial claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $2,083.97 for defendant's alleged failure to pay for furniture which plaintiff delivered to her. Defendant interposed a counterclaim to recover the principal sum of $5,000, alleging that she had paid for furniture which was either not received or damaged. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $813.97 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. This appeal by defendant ensued.
In a commercial claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807-A; see CCA 1804-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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 deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).
In the instant case, the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses and defendant regarding the transaction at issue differed markedly. The Civil Court apparently found plaintiff's version of the facts to be more credible than defendant's version, and we find no reason to disturb the Civil Court's factual determination in this regard.
As the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804-A, 1807-A), the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.