Opinion
2008-1973 OR C.
Decided April 8, 2010.
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), entered November 15, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $445 on his counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: MOLIA, J.P., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ.
Plaintiff brought this small claims action against her former dentist to recover for "unsatisfactory dental work." Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $445 as the balance due for the services rendered. After a nonjury trial, the City Court dismissed the action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $445 on his counterclaim. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.
Our review is limited to determining whether the judgment of the City Court provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125). The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on 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 at 126). Accordingly, a small claims judgment will not be overturned unless "the deviation from substantive law . . . [is] readily apparent and the court's determination clearly erroneous" ( Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620, 621).
Since plaintiff failed to show through expert testimony that defendant had departed from the requisite standard of dental practice during her dental treatment, and that such departure was a substantial factor in bringing about her injury, she did not establish that defendant was liable for dental malpractice ( see Cava v Fox , 22 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52648[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2008]; Awkar v Zegarelli , 15 Misc 3d 137 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50891[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, the City Court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim. Moreover, as plaintiff admitted at trial that she had not paid defendant the remaining balance of $445 for the services he had rendered, defendant was properly awarded judgment on the counterclaim. Substantial justice was therefore done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807), and the judgment is affirmed.
We note that certain documents included in plaintiff's brief are dehors the record and may not be considered on appeal, since this court is limited to reviewing matters contained in the settled record ( see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508).
Molia, J.P., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.