Opinion
No. 2014–1002 Q C.
07-14-2015
Peter DODIK, Appellant, v. MELNIK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Respondent.
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), entered October 3, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.
ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $2,000, the amount given to defendant law firm as a deposit pursuant to an estate planning retainer. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the principal sum of $2,000 for “nonpayment for services rendered on April 9, 2012.” Following a nonjury trial, both plaintiff's cause of action and defendant's counterclaim were dismissed. Only plaintiff has appealed.
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” (CCA 1807 ; see CCA 1804 ; 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 Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d at 126 ).
Plaintiff, who was self-represented, claims that he was not afforded an opportunity to fully explain his story or to call a witness on his behalf. While much of the questioning was done by the Civil Court in an attempt to elicit the relevant facts, it appears that those facts were ultimately elicited. Plaintiff failed to raise any objection during the trial concerning the court's conduct, and there is no indication in the record that plaintiff was prevented from either explaining his story or from raising any objections. In any event, plaintiff is bound by the terms of the retainer agreement he signed, notwithstanding his claim that he did not have an opportunity to study it more thoroughly (see Cash v. Titan Fin. Servs., Inc., 58 AD3d 785 [2009] ). The Civil Court apparently found defendant's version of the facts to be more credible than plaintiff's version, and there is no reason for this court to disturb the Civil Court's factual determination in this regard.
As the judgment, insofar as appealed from, provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807 ), it is affirmed.
WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.