Opinion
2007-949 S C.
Decided July 8, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered November 1, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $995.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
In this commercial claims action, plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $1,749, representing amounts allegedly due and owing from defendant for the repair of machinery and tools as well as for defendant's purchase of refurbished machinery. Defendant contended that certain amounts charged by plaintiff were excessive, that certain equipment which it had given to plaintiff for repair was not returned to it, and that the amount of a credit given to it by plaintiff should be increased. After a nonjury trial, the court awarded plaintiff a judgment of $995. This appeal by defendant ensued.
Our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807-A). The deference which an appellate court normally accords to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in small claims and commercial claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). Even if the appellate court differs with the small claims or commercial claims court on an arguable point of fact or law, it should not reverse absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the trial court's conclusions or that they are otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice ( see Payne v Biglin, 2 Misc 3d 127[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51694[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2003]).
In the instant case, the trial court apparently found plaintiff's witness's version of the facts to be more credible than the defense witness's version. Accordingly, there is no reason for this court to disturb the trial court's judgment on that basis.
With regard to defendant's contention that this court should increase the amount of the setoff for the items which plaintiff failed to return to defendant, we note that there is insufficient evidence in the record as to the value of said items in their particular condition to justify a modification of the amount determined by the trial court.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.