Reddan v. Italian

Full title: Stephen G. Reddan, Esq., Respondent, v. Saharnaz Italian, Appellant.

Court: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Oct 15, 2020

2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 51224 (N.Y. App. Term 2020)

Opinion

2019-1568 N C

10-15-2020

Stephen G. Reddan, Esq., Respondent, v. Saharnaz Italian, Appellant.

Saharnaz Italian, appellant pro se. Stephen G. Reddan, Esq., respondent pro se (no brief filed).

THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ

PRESENT: :

Saharnaz Italian, appellant pro se.

Stephen G. Reddan, Esq., respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (William Hohauser, J.), entered March 22, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,832.50.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff, an attorney, seeks the principal sum of $2,832.50 from a former client based on an account stated. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the amount sought.

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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). 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 Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

At the trial, plaintiff testified that he billed defendant for legal services and that defendant did not object to the bill. Plaintiff submitted the bill and a retainer agreement into evidence. Defendant testified, but did not claim either that she had not received the bill or that she had objected to it. As there was a basis for the District Court to find that plaintiff had established an account stated (see American Express Centurion Bank v Cutler, 81 AD3d 761 [2011]), the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: October 15, 2020