Opinion
2009-961 N C.
Decided July 29, 2010.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered October 6, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and IANNACCI, JJ.
. Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the cost of the repair of an automobile signal switch. Plaintiff had purchased defendant's 13-year-old automobile and claimed that defendant had defrauded him by failing to tell him that there was a problem with the signal switch. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action, finding that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126).
The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court ( see Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511).
Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud. To establish the elements of fraud, a plaintiff must show that a material misrepresentation, known to be false, has been made with the intention of inducing reliance upon the misstatement which caused the plaintiff to reasonably rely on the misrepresentation, as a result of which he sustained damages ( see Nigro v Lee, 63 AD3d 1490; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052; Cohen v Colistra, 233 AD2d 542). The record establishes that the signal switch malfunction could have been easily discovered by routine investigation by plaintiff himself when he was afforded the opportunity to test-drive the car, or plaintiff could have hired a mechanic to inspect the car before purchasing it ( see Nigro v Lee, 63 AD3d at 1492; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d at 1056). Consequently, plaintiff failed to establish his reliance upon any alleged misrepresentation ( see Nigro v Lee, 63 AD3d at 1492; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner 58 AD3d at 1056). As we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination, the judgment is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and Iannacci, JJ., concur.