[*1]
Goldberg v Kramer
2015 NY Slip Op 50074(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on January 15, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : TOLBERT, J.P., IANNACCI and GARGUILO, JJ.
2013-1607 OR C

Martin Goldberg, Respondent,

against

Robert Kramer, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Warwick, Orange County (Nancy Brenner DeAngelo, J.), entered May 28, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,000 and implicitly dismissed the counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $1,000 for services he had rendered in the preparation of defendant's tax returns for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Defendant interposed a counterclaim to recover the sum of $3,000, alleging that plaintiff had committed fraud. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,000, and implicitly dismissed the counterclaim.


In a small 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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; 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 Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the judgment in this case provided the parties with substantial justice (see UJCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

We note that defendant's contention regarding recusal is not preserved for appellate review.

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


Decision Date: January 15, 2015