From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chamois v. Gargiulo

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Apr 4, 2013
39 Misc. 3d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

No. 2011–2084 ORC.

2013-04-4

Ali CHAMOIS, Appellant, v. Mark GARGIULO, Respondent.


Present: IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Chester, Orange County (Janet A. Haislip, J.), entered April 14, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $2,000, alleging that defendant, who had performed work for the owners of the property which adjoined plaintiff's, had, without authorization, removed forsythia bushes from plaintiff's property. After a nonjury trial, at which both plaintiff and defendant submitted certified surveys purportedly demonstrating that the bushes were located within their respective property boundary lines, the Justice Court dismissed the action, finding that plaintiff had failed to satisfy her burden of establishing that the bushes had been removed from her property. We affirm.

We note initially that the disputed issue of the property boundary line does not divest the Small Claims Part of the Justice Court of jurisdiction over the action to the extent that the claim is for the recovery of money damages only ( seeUJCA 1801; Haber v. Sagaria, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op 40203[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2002]; Reynolds v. Town of Greenville, NYLJ, May 19, 2000 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see also Wainwright & Page Inc. v. Burr & McAuley, Inc., 272 N.Y. 130 [1936];Mohar Realty Co. v. Smith, 46 Misc.2d 849 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1965] ).

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 (UJCA 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 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] ). As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chamois v. Gargiulo

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Apr 4, 2013
39 Misc. 3d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Chamois v. Gargiulo

Case Details

Full title:ALI CHAMOIS, Appellant, v. MARK GARGIULO, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Apr 4, 2013

Citations

39 Misc. 3d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 50522
971 N.Y.S.2d 70

Citing Cases

Stiefel v. Babakhanova

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, rendered substantial…