Opinion
No. 2013–1736 K C.
01-15-2015
DATEX NEW YORK, INC., Respondent, v. ADORABLE PILLOWS, Appellant.
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered April 9, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,400.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $4,400 for goods allegedly sold and delivered but not paid for. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,400.
In a commercial 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” (CCA 1807–A [a]; see CCA 1804–A ; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126 [2000] ). 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] ). The deference normally accorded to the credibility determinations of a trial court applies with greater force in the Commercial Claims Part of the court, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal (see Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d at 126 ). In this case, we find that the Civil Court's determination rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1807–A [a] ), as there is support in the record for the court's finding that plaintiff had established its case. It is noted that defendant's arguments on appeal were not raised below and so are not properly before this court. In any event, we find that defendant's objections are not sufficient to disturb the judgment.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.