Opinion
No. 2011–159 N C.
2012-03-6
Nida AHMED, Respondent, v. Rhonda BOLTAX, Appellant.
Present: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Gary Franklin Knobel, J.), entered June 23, 2010. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $110.
ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for defendant's alleged breach of a contract to sell her playground set. As limited by her brief, defendant appeals from so much of a District Court judgment as, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $110. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000];Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126 [2000] ).
The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v. Menotti, 160 A.D.2d 544 [1990] ). This standard 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). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the 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] ). As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment, insofar as appealed from.