[*1]
Shannon v Lowe's
2015 NY Slip Op 50692(U) [47 Misc 3d 144(A)]
Decided on May 1, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 1, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
2014-397 RO C

Joseph Shannon, Appellant,

against

Lowe's, Respondent.


Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Richard C. Finning, J.), entered October 15, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action for breach of contract, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the bathroom renovation that defendant was hired to perform was not completed in a timely manner. Following a nonjury trial, the Justice Court dismissed the action.


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 record supports the Justice Court's determination, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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


Decision Date: May 01, 2015