Opinion
2006-1348 S C.
Decided on July 7, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered January 6, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, implicitly dismissed defendant's counterclaim and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,239.
Judgment reversed without costs, counterclaim reinstated and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant's defective installation of a hardwood floor resulted in cupping and cracking throughout the floor. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $1,816, representing the balance remaining on the parties' $6,055 contract, plus finance charges of $354.12. After a nonjury trial, the court below found that defendant was liable for the defective installation of plaintiff's floor, implicitly dismissed the counterclaim and awarded plaintiff the sum of $4,239, representing the amount plaintiff paid on the contract. Defendant appeals.
A decision rendered by a court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal, particularly where findings of fact rest in large part on the credibility of witnesses, unless it is obvious that it could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( e.g. Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UDCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125). In view of the foregoing, this court affirms the finding of the court below that defendant is liable for the defective installation of plaintiff's floor.
However, substantial justice was not done according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; see Williams, 269 AD2d at 126) because the amount plaintiff paid on the contract was an improper basis for the award of damages. The correct measure of damages in this case is the cost to repair or replace the floor ( Halsey v Connor, 287 AD2d 597; see Brushton-Moira Cent. School Dist. v Thomas Assoc., 91 NY2d 256, 261; see also UDCA 1804]), which cost was not shown. Furthermore, the parties agreed that $1,816 remained unpaid on the contract. Accordingly, defendant's counterclaim is reinstated and the matter is remanded to the court below for a new trial on the issue of damages.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.