| Pedro v Booker |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 51367(U) [64 Misc 3d 148(A)] |
| Decided on August 16, 2019 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Olalekan Pedro, appellant pro se. Phillip Booker and Veronica Phillip-Booker, respondents pro se (no brief filed).
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered January 2, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $4,850 for nonpayment of rent, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court which, after a nonjury trial, 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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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).
It is uncontested that the parties had signed a stipulation in a prior summary proceeding which required defendants to vacate the apartment and surrender the keys by December 31, 2016. While plaintiff testified at trial that defendants had failed to vacate the apartment or surrender the keys by December 31, 2016, defendant Phillip Booker testified that defendants had moved out on December 31st. The Civil Court, which had the opportunity to evaluate the evidence, found that the testimony of defendant Phillip Booker was more credible than that of plaintiff. As the court's determination is supported by the record, the judgment provided the parties with substantial [*2]justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807). We note that this court does not consider any evidence which is dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, J.P., PESCE and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 16, 2019