Opinion
2014-488 D C
05-01-2015
Kate Harris, Respondent, v. Villa Borghese, Appellant.
PRESENT: : , TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County (Carl S. Wolfson, J.), entered October 7, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks the return of a $3,000 deposit she paid defendant during 2012 with respect to a wedding reception that she intended to hold at defendant's restaurant on March 2, 2013. Although defendant sent plaintiff a contract to sign, plaintiff refused to sign it because it did not contain any prices for the affair. When plaintiff could not get in touch with anyone at the restaurant, she demanded her money back in August 2012. Defendant refused to return the $3,000 deposit, and this action ensued. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court found that no contract had been entered into between the parties and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.
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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 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).
As the record supports the Justice Court's determination that no binding contract had ever been entered into (cf. Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., 4 NY3d 363 [2005]), we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 01, 2015