Opinion
2013-612 S C
07-07-2015
James Sharpelletti, Respondent, July 7, 2015 v. Linda Allen, Appellant.
PRESENT: :
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County (Richard A. Ehlers, J.), entered August 6, 2013. The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated December 14, 2012, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1,765 on his cause of action and awarding defendant the principal sum of $238.97 on her counterclaim, awarded plaintiff the net principal sum of $1,526.03.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover his security deposit in the sum of $1,765 from defendant, his former landlord. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $3,000 for property damage allegedly caused by plaintiff and for missing items. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court issued a decision dated December 14, 2012 wherein it found that, with respect to her counterclaim, defendant had established damages in the amount of $238.97, representing the value of a microwave oven and ceiling fan that were missing from her property, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $1,765 on his cause of action, for a net award in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,526.03. A judgment was subsequently entered on August 6, 2013. On appeal, defendant argues that, with respect to her counterclaim, the Justice Court erred in failing to award her any amount for damage to her carpeting, for the cost of replacing a cesspool and for painting.
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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 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 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).
As the Justice Court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see UJCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.
Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 07, 2015