Opinion
2006-2172 K C.
Decided on February 6, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), entered on August 9, 2006. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000 against defendant Giuseppe Gambino.
PRESENT: WESTON PATTERSON, J.P. and RIOS, J.
Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs. In this small claims action brought to recover a deposit given in connection with the possible procurement of a lease, substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807). The trier of fact was presented with questions of fact, particularly with regard to whether the $5,000 deposit was given with the understanding that the lease would be non-negotiable. It appears that the court properly credited plaintiff's testimony to the effect that he was not told by the realtor that the door to negotiations was closed before he gave the deposit, that it remained necessary for both landlord and tenant to approve of each other and that there was never a meeting of minds between them.
The decision of the 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 AD2d 544). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference on appeal as the court had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses thereby affording it a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511). This is especially true when findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses ( Richard's Home Ctr. Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254). The record amply supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, there is no reason to disturb the judgment.
Weston Patterson, J.P. and Rios, J., concur.