Opinion
No. 2020-301 K C
07-28-2023
Dzire Lihari, Appellant, v. A&B Carpet NY, Respondent.
Dzire Lihari, appellant pro se. A&B Carpet NY, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
Dzire Lihari, appellant pro se.
A&B Carpet NY, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., MARINA CORA MUNDY, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered September 23, 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 $5,000 for damage to her rug after defendant cleaned it. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that she had paid defendant $350 to clean a silk and wool rug that she had owned for 15 years. Plaintiff submitted a receipt for the rug cleaning, signed by plaintiff, which stated "all carpeting and fabrics cleaned at customer's risk." Plaintiff testified that, after it was cleaned, the rug was presented to her in a damaged condition and that she refused to accept its return, as it was unusable. Aside from her testimony, plaintiff did not present evidence of the condition of the rug after the cleaning, and she failed to offer any testimony or evidence as to the value of the rug at the time it was allegedly damaged. Witnesses for defendant testified that the rug's appearance and condition after the cleaning were normal after such a cleaning. The witnesses also testified that the rug was still in defendant's possession at its office. Following the trial, the Civil Court found in favor of defendant and dismissed the action. On the record, defendant agreed to return the rug and the $350 cleaning fee to plaintiff.
On appeal, plaintiff seeks to have the trial reopened to afford her an opportunity to present evidence of the current condition of the rug. She further contends that defendant required her to sign a release before it would return the rug and the $350 cleaning fee but she refused to sign the release. Thus, defendant still retains the rug and the $350 fee defendant had stipulated to return.
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 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 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 A.D.2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 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 A.D.2d at 126).
Here, plaintiff signed the receipt which purported to release defendant from liability for damage to the rug as a result of the cleaning. In any event, plaintiff failed to establish what defendant did to cause the alleged damage to the rug. Moreover, there was no evidence presented as to what the rug was worth at the time it was allegedly damaged. As the Civil Court afforded plaintiff a full and complete opportunity to present all of her evidence at trial, and plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie case, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).
We note that, at trial, defendant agreed to the unconditional return to plaintiff of the rug and the $350 cleaning fee.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and VENTURA, JJ., concur.