From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Isnady v. Parliman

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Dec 24, 2020
70 Misc. 3d 132 (N.Y. App. Term 2020)

Opinion

2018-1016 OR C

12-24-2020

Will ISNADY, Appellant, v. Raelene L. PARLIMAN and William B. Tyndall, Respondents.

Will Isnady, appellant pro se. Raelene L. Parliman and William B. Tyndall, respondents pro se (no brief filed).


Will Isnady, appellant pro se.

Raelene L. Parliman and William B. Tyndall, respondents pro se (no brief filed).

PRESENT: BRUCE E. TOLBERT, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, JERRY GARGUILO, JJ.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $1,522 for damage to his vehicle resulting from an accident with a vehicle driven by defendant Raelene Parliman. After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff $761, based upon an apportionment of liability of 50 percent against plaintiff and 50 percent against defendants. 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" ( UCCA 1807 ; see UCCA 1804 ; Ross v. Friedman , 269 AD2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper , 269 AD2d 125 [2000] ). 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 court's determination to allocate 50 percent of the responsibility for the accident to plaintiff is supported by the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UCCA 1804, 1807 ).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

TOLBERT, J.P., ADAMS and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Isnady v. Parliman

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Dec 24, 2020
70 Misc. 3d 132 (N.Y. App. Term 2020)
Case details for

Isnady v. Parliman

Case Details

Full title:Will Isnady, Appellant, v. Raelene L. Parliman and William B. Tyndall…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Dec 24, 2020

Citations

70 Misc. 3d 132 (N.Y. App. Term 2020)
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 51552
135 N.Y.S.3d 764