Opinion
2006-2079 S C.
Decided January 2, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered June 20, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover $3,225.78 which he had allegedly loaned to defendant. At trial, plaintiff testified that he had made payments to cover amounts due on defendant's car loan and mortgage, upon the understanding that defendant would repay him. Defendant testified that said amounts were intended to be compensation for work she did for plaintiff with respect to his investment in a real estate transaction.
Our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807). Moreover, the deference which we normally accord to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). Even if the appellate court differs with the small claims court on an arguable point of fact or law, it should not reverse absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the trial court's conclusions or that they are otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice ( see Payne v Biglin, 2 Misc 3d 127 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51694[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]).
In the instant case, after hearing the trial testimony, the court apparently found defendant's version of the facts to be more credible than plaintiff's version. There is no reason for this court to disturb the trial court's judgment on that basis, and it cannot be said that substantial justice was not done between the parties.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.