Opinion
2019-1802 N C
04-15-2021
DYNAMIC AUTO WORKS & SALES, INC., Respondent, v. CITY WIDE CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION, INC., Appellant and Nadeem Anwar, Defendant.
City Wide Construction & Renovation, Inc., appellant pro se. Dynamic Auto Works & Sales, Inc., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
City Wide Construction & Renovation, Inc., appellant pro se.
Dynamic Auto Works & Sales, Inc., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT: TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is modified by reducing the amount of the award in favor of plaintiff as against defendant City Wide Construction & Renovation, Inc. to the principal sum of $1,323.89; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this commercial claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $1,675, based on the failure of defendants City Wide Construction & Renovation, Inc. (City Wide) and Nadeem Anwar to pay $1,400 for repairs that plaintiff performed on City Wide's vehicle, plus $275 in legal fees.
At a nonjury trial, plaintiff's owner testified that, in August 2018, after City Wide's vehicle broke down, City Wide's vice-president, defendant Anwar, had asked him to have the vehicle towed to plaintiff's automobile repair shop, where a technician determined that the fuel pump and fuel regulator had previously been replaced with "after-market" parts which had malfunctioned in City Wide's Ford vehicle and should be replaced with Ford parts. He said he had provided that information by telephone to Mr. Anwar, who had orally authorized plaintiff to make the repair, following which plaintiff had ordered the required parts from a Ford dealer and performed the repair. Plaintiff's August 18, 2018 invoice which, plaintiff's owner testified, had been left on the dashboard of City Wide's vehicle, reflected charges for towing, parts, labor, and tax that totaled $1,323.89.
Mr. Anwar did not dispute that he had asked plaintiff to tow City Wide's vehicle to plaintiff's shop, but testified that he had not authorized plaintiff to make the repairs, denied that plaintiff had provided him with an invoice until March 2019, and claimed, in effect, that the repairs had been inadequate because the vehicle had broken down again shortly after plaintiff's repair. In support of this claim, he introduced into evidence a paid bill for $500, dated August 22, 2018, from a different repair shop, which was for the replacement of the vehicle's battery and alternator. Following the trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,675 as against defendant City Wide and dismissed the action against defendant Anwar. City Wide appeals.
In a commercial claims action, our review is limited to determining whether "substantial justice has ... been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" ( UDCA 1807-A [a] ; see UDCA 1804-A ; Ross v Friedman , 269 AD2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v Roper , 269 AD2d 125 [2000] ). 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 AD2d 564 [1992] ; Kincade v Kincade , 178 AD2d 510 [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 (see Williams v Roper , 269 AD2d at 126 ).
The court implicitly credited the testimony of plaintiff's owner, that Mr. Anwar had authorized plaintiff to repair defendant's vehicle, and that plaintiff had placed a copy of its invoice on the dashboard of the vehicle. The evidence defendants presented, that within days of plaintiff's repair, City Wide had replaced the vehicle's battery and alternator, had no bearing on the adequacy of plaintiff's repairs to the vehicle's fuel system. To the extent that the District Court's judgment awarded payment of plaintiff's invoice in the sum of $1,323.89 for towing, parts, labor and tax, we conclude that it rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UDCA 1807-A [a] ; 1804-A). However, to the extent that the judgment may have included an award for legal fees for which there was no basis (see Congel v Malfitano , 31 NY3d 272, 290-291 [2018] ; Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak , 69 NY2d 1, 5 [1986] ), or otherwise exceeded the $1,323.89 amount of the invoice, it failed to render substantial justice between the parties.
We reach no issues which are raised for the first time on appeal (see Chimarios v Duhl , 152 AD2d 508 [1989] ).
Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is modified by reducing the amount of the award in favor of plaintiff as against defendant City Wide Construction & Renovation, Inc. to the principal sum of $1,323.89.
RUDERMAN, P.J., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.