Opinion
2006-1036 S C.
Decided on June 5, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton, Suffolk County (Barbara Wilson, J.), entered November 7, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
Plaintiff, an importer and seller of eyeglass frames, brought the instant small claims action against defendant Southampton Optiks Ltd. to recover $408.10, representing the amount allegedly due for frames sold to defendant. Defendant had apparently attempted to return the frames, which were allegedly defective. However, plaintiff refused to accept the return, claiming a no-refund policy.
At trial, plaintiff introduced a document which described plaintiff's "purchase policy" of exchanges only and "no returns without authorization," as well as an invoice for payment. The defense witness claimed that he had never before seen the "purchase policy" document. The court dismissed the action, finding that plaintiff had not met his burden of demonstrating that defendant had been aware of, and had agreed to, plaintiff's purchase policy.
The standard of review on appeal of a small claims judgment is whether "substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UJCA 1807). A small claims judgment may not be reversed absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the court's conclusions, or that the court's determination is otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice ( see Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620; see also Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167).
On appeal, it is argued that the court erred in its utilization of an interpreter at the trial. Our review of the trial transcript reveals that the court made a thorough inquiry of plaintiff regarding whether he required the assistance of an interpreter. Despite plaintiff's assurances that he did not need an interpreter, the court had one remain available to the witness should the need arise. Contrary to plaintiff's contentions on appeal, he was not prejudiced by the procedure used. He was able to communicate and to understand the proceedings and plaintiff was not prevented from presenting his case ( cf. Mahmood v Wong, 18 AD3d 518).
Moreover, with respect to plaintiff's contention on appeal that defendant failed to prove that the frames were not merchantable, we find that defendant presented sufficient proof of a breach of the warranty of merchantability, and note that plaintiff's position at trial was that his purchase policy limited defendant's remedy to replacement or repair of the frames, and not that the frames were merchantable. Although UCC 2-719 (1) (a) permits the parties to limit "the buyer's remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of non-conforming goods or parts" in place of the standard remedy of damages pursuant to UCC 2-714, the defense witness claimed never to have seen the "purchase policy" document which plaintiff offered into evidence. The court below ultimately found that there was insufficient evidence "of an agreement indicating both parties' expectations concerning their behavior in relation to defective merchandise." The deference which we normally accord to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated
record available on appeal ( Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). Under the circumstances presented, we find no basis to disturb the lower court's dismissal of the action after trial, since substantial justice was done between the parties (UJCA 1807).
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.