Opinion
2014-2655 K C
12-21-2015
Gera Greene, Appellant, v. Alliant Seaview, L.P. and All Country Management, LLC, Respondents.
PRESENT: :
Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered August 14, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,250.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $2,529.18 based on defendants' failure to repair her apartment after it had been damaged during Hurricane Sandy. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff presented to the Civil Court receipts totaling $3,729.18 for costs she had allegedly incurred in repairing the damage to her apartment which was purportedly caused by Hurricane Sandy. Defendants argued that they had sufficiently repaired plaintiff's apartment following the storm, but plaintiff wanted upgraded repairs. For example, plaintiff had wanted a new refrigerator and, instead, defendant provided plaintiff with a refurbished refrigerator. Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,250. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.
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 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 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 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).
Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff has not shown any basis for finding that the $1,250 judgment is inadequate. Even though plaintiff provided the court with $3,729.18 in receipts, she failed to establish that more than $1,250 of the receipts were for repairs to damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Consequently, we find that the parties have been provided with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Aliotta, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 21, 2015