Opinion
2008-557 RI C.
Decided February 10, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Mary Kim Dollard, J.), dated May 1, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's claim and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,000 on its counterclaim.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and STEINHARDT, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover for breach of a contract for the manufacture and installation of a gate. Defendant interposed a counterclaim seeking $3,000, the balance due on the contract. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed plaintiff's claim and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,000 on its counterclaim. Upon a review of the record, we find that the trial court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804-A, 1807-A; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126).
The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as the court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511). The deference accorded to a trial court's determinations of credibility applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court, given the limited standard of review ( see Personal Touch Tours, Ltd. v Hudson River Adventures , 20 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51411[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2008]). In the instant matter, the testimony adduced at trial showed that defendant
manufactured the gate ordered by plaintiff and made several attempts to contact plaintiff for installation. However, plaintiff did not respond to defendant's messages, causing defendant to miss the date by which the gate was to be installed by defendant pursuant to the contract. Since there is ample support in the record for the trial court's conclusions (UCC 2-709), the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.