Opinion
2021-181 RO C
03-03-2022
Edward Torian and Patricia Torian, Respondents, v. D'Agostino Landscaping & Irrigation, Appellant.
Condon & Associates, PLLC (Brian Condon of counsel), for appellant. Edward Torian and Patricia Torian, respondents pro se (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
Condon & Associates, PLLC (Brian Condon of counsel), for appellant.
Edward Torian and Patricia Torian, respondents pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: JERRY GARGUILO, P.J., TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County (Craig E. Johns, J.), entered January 5, 2021. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,526.55.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $3,000, alleging that two employees of defendant damaged plaintiffs' vehicle with leaf blowers while working at a condominium complex where plaintiffs resided. Following a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,526.55.
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 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, the judgment in favor of plaintiffs reflects that the Justice Court credited the testimony of plaintiffs' witness that she observed the employees scratch plaintiffs' vehicle with leaf blowers as they walked through the narrow space between the vehicle and the wall containing garbage receptacles, and we find no basis to disturb the court's credibility determination (see Morgan v Long Is. Roofing & Repairs Corp., 63 Misc.3d 143 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50631[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]). As to the amount to be awarded for the damage, plaintiffs submitted two itemized estimates to establish the reasonable value and necessity of the repairs to the vehicle, and the lower of those estimates indicated that the cost of repairs was $2,526.55 (see UJCA 1804; Five J's Auto., Ltd. v Hughes, 51 Misc.3d 147 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50753[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; Dorneval v Sidoti, 48 Misc.3d 126[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50907[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]). Defendant's remaining contention regarding its allegedly improper party designation is unpreserved for appellate review (see Thomas v Jordan, 66 Misc.3d 54, 57 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020]) and, in any event, lacks merit (see UJCA 1814; Laverty v Empire State Bldrs. & Contrs., Inc., 5 Misc.3d 135 [A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51486[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]). In view of the foregoing, the judgment awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,526.55 rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UJCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
GARGUILO, P.J., DRISCOLL and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.