Opinion
2005-871 KC.
Decided February 28, 2006.
Appeal by defendant Helene Schwarzenberger from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ellen M. Spodek, J.), entered September 21, 2004. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, awarded plaintiff, after a nonjury trial, the principal sum of $844.34.
Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
PRESENT:: WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
Plaintiff brought the instant small claims action sounding in conversion, to recover damages for personal property, including supplies and hand tools, which was held and ultimately discarded by defendant Helene Schwarzenberger. Following trial, the court awarded judgment to plaintiff as against defendant Helene Schwarzenberger, and defendant Helene Schwarzenberger appeals.
Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. Inasmuch as she did not seek dismissal on that basis in her motion to vacate a prior default judgment which had been rendered against her, did not make a pretrial motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, and appeared at the trial and defended on the merits without raising the jurisdictional objection, she is deemed to have waived this defense ( see CPLR 3211 [e]).
Contrary to defendant's contention that the court demonstrated bias and prejudice against her, there is nothing in the record to support that claim. Indeed, the record indicates that the court gave her an opportunity to adjourn the case in order that she be able to interpose a counterclaim, an offer which Ms. Schwarzenberger declined.
Our review of the small claims judgment 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). Moreover, the deference which an appellate court normally accords to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in a small claims action, given the limited scope of review ( Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). After hearing the trial testimony, the court apparently believed plaintiff's version of the facts to be more credible than defendant's version, and there is no reason for this court to disturb the court's findings on that basis.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.