Victoria Kupchinetsky, appellant pro se. Aaron Bassin-Hill, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jill R. Epstein, J.), entered January 23, 2023. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,200.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,200 for services rendered to defendant. Plaintiff testified that the parties entered into an oral agreement requiring defendant to pay him $400 per day to edit a documentary film. He indicated that it took him 13 days to edit 10 minutes of the documentary, and that, after viewing the footage, defendant expressed her dissatisfaction with his work, and requested that plaintiff email her an invoice for his services. Plaintiff emailed defendant an invoice requesting payment of $5,200 within 30 days, which invoice defendant failed to pay, despite numerous demands from plaintiff. The invoice, which was presented to the court, was addressed to both defendant and Calico Films. Plaintiff did not sue Calico Films, but stated that Calico Films was defendant's LLC. Defendant confirmed the existence of an oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant, and did not dispute plaintiff's testimony regarding the terms of the oral agreement. Defendant testified that [*2]she did not pay plaintiff because his work was inadequate, but admitted that, following receipt of the invoice, she did not inform plaintiff in writing that she would not be paying the invoice. Following the trial, the Civil Court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $5,200, and defendant appeals on the ground that she was an improper party to this action, as the oral agreement was between plaintiff and Calico Films, LLC.

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]).

Upon a review of the record and defendant's contentions on appeal, we find no reason to disturb the judgment. Defendant's contention that she was an improper party to this action, because the agreement was between plaintiff and Calico Films, LLC, is unpreserved for appellate review (see Rielly v Naftal, 300 AD2d 811, 811 [2002]; Hidalgo v Samaras, 71 Misc 3d 127[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50231[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2021]; Alexander v Greenwald, 65 Misc 3d 136[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51649[U], *1 [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]; Collens v Sayegh, 64 Misc 3d 145[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51302[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]). In any event, this contention is unsupported by the record, as defendant admitted at trial that she was a party to the agreement and never argued that she was acting in a representative capacity when she entered into the agreement with plaintiff.

To the extent that defendant asserts that she was prevented from calling a witness who would have argued that the action should have been brought against Calico Films, LLC, this assertion is without merit, as defendant never even attempted to call a witness during her case. Further, defendant has provided no explanation as to why she could not have presented this argument herself. Contrary to defendant's argument, the record is devoid of any evidence that defendant "was denied the opportunity to fully argue [her] case" (Migliorini v Musumeci, 42 Misc 3d 129[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52159[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]). As the judgment is supported by the record, it rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.