| Anglin v Vranizan |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 51299(U) [69 Misc 3d 137(A)] |
| Decided on October 30, 2020 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Duane C. Anglin, appellant pro se. Nicole R. Vranizan, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered January 9, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $2,000 for "property improperly withheld" by defendant. After a nonjury trial, the Civil 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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2006]). 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 [*2]Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807).
Plaintiff's contention about a security deposit is not properly before this court, as it is being raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]; Pavlova v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 59 Misc 3d 150[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50833[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]). We note that this court does not consider documents attached to plaintiff's brief on appeal, as they are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.