| Airlite Windows, Inc. v Anopa |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 50667(U) [72 Misc 3d 133(A)] |
| Decided on July 9, 2021 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Inna Anopa, appellant pro se. Airlite Windows, Inc., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rachel Freier, J.), entered March 11, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the balance due on a contract for the installation of two patio doors in defendant's apartment located in Westchester County. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $5,000, representing the cost to repair plaintiff's defective work and the damage plaintiff caused to defendant's apartment. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. Defendant appeals.
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 [a]; see CCA 1804-A; 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 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]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (see Williams v [*2]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-A, 1807-A [a]).
We note that certain documents included in defendant's brief are dehors the record and were not considered (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.