Opinion
No. 2021-514 N C
02-23-2023
Wilfrank Robertson Ceballos, Respondent, v. Judd Lesser and Smile Boutique Dental of L.I., Appellants.
Judd Lesser and Smile Boutique Dental of L.I., appellants pro se. Wilfrank Robertson Ceballos, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
Judd Lesser and Smile Boutique Dental of L.I., appellants pro se.
Wilfrank Robertson Ceballos, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: JERRY GARGUILO, P.J., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JAMES P. McCORMACK, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (David I. Levine, J.), entered August 11, 2021. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,500.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000, which LendingClub, a financial institution recommended to plaintiff by defendants, paid to defendants, and which sum was charged against plaintiff's LendingClub account, for dental services plaintiff did not receive from defendants. Defendants argued, among other things, that the payment was for prepaid services which were not refundable. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,500.
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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584, 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126 [2000]). Moreover, 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]), and 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).
Upon a review of the record, we find that the District Court's judgment was based upon its implicit determination that no treatment plan was ever agreed to between the parties and, thus, that there was no basis for defendants to retain the $5,000 it received for services which were admittedly never rendered. Such determination was not so "clearly erroneous" as to deny substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (Forte v Bielecki, 118 A.D.2d 620, 621 [1986]; see Kapoor v Kuwait Airways Customs Serv. Dept., 61 Misc.3d 132 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51450[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
GARGUILO, P.J., EMERSON and McCORMACK, JJ., concur.