Opinion
2007-985 N C.
Decided July 1, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Edmund M. Dane, J.), entered January 29, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,500 on his counterclaim.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $5,000, representing the amount she had already paid to defendant pursuant to an oral agreement whereby defendant would draft and file architectural plans for her home construction project. Defendant counterclaimed to recover $3,500, which, he claimed, was the balance due for his services in drafting and completing the plans.
At trial, plaintiff testified that defendant had never shown her the plans until the time of trial, and that defendant was supposed to have filed the plans with the Department of Buildings and to have obtained a demolition permit. Defendant testified that he had in fact previously shown the plans to plaintiff, who had not objected to them, and that he had been unable to file the plans because plaintiff had not had certain tests performed at the property which were necessary prior to filing. He testified that the total charge for drafting the plans was $8,500, of which plaintiff had paid him only $5,000, and that a check for $3,000, which plaintiff had made payable to the Department of Buildings, had not been negotiated since the plans had not been filed. The lower court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant $3,500 on the counterclaim. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.
We initially note that although plaintiff contends on appeal that the court erred in failing to provide her with an interpreter, the record does not show that plaintiff had an inability to express herself or to communicate in English such that said failure would constitute error. Moreover, contrary to plaintiff's contention on appeal, there is no absolute right to counsel in a private civil matter ( see e.g. Matter of Smiley, 36 NY2d 433), and the court was therefore not obliged to advise her of such a right or to adjourn the trial in order for her to procure the services of counsel.
Resolution of issues of credibility is for the trier of fact, since it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses ( see McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824; Richard's Home Ctr. Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544), and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that said determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, supra). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the District Court given the limited standard of review (UDCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). A review of the record on appeal indicates there was sufficient support for the trial court's findings that the parties entered into an oral agreement and that defendant performed his services pursuant to the agreement except for those services, i.e., the filing for the permit, which could not be performed by defendant due to plaintiff's refusal to cooperate. Since "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807), the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.