Opinion
2007-1755 W C.
Decided February 13, 2009.
Appeal from a decision of the City Court of Mount Vernon, Westchester County (Mark A. Gross, J.), entered June 12, 2006, deemed from a judgment of said court entered September 12, 2006 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover damages from defendant, a professional engineer, for the latter's alleged failure to conduct a proper home inspection prior to plaintiff's purchase of his home. The pre-purchase inspection was conducted in December 2004, plaintiff and his family moved into the premises in March 2005, and Con Edison turned off the gas in April 2005 due to a carbon monoxide leak from the boiler. Plaintiff was required to spend almost $8,000 for the purchase and installation of a new boiler. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to alert him to the presence of two warning tags from November 2002, which were on the boiler at the time of inspection, indicating that operation of the boiler was unsafe. Defendant testified that, at the time of the inspection, there were no such tags on the boiler, the boiler was operational, and no spillage was detected around the boiler area. Furthermore, he told plaintiff at the time of the inspection, and noted in the inspection report itself, that the boiler was old and that no guarantee would be made regarding its future performance. His report also recommended that two carbon monoxide detectors be placed in proximity to the boiler. After a nonjury trial, the City Court found that defendant was negligent in failing to note the two tags affixed to the boiler at the time of the inspection, and awarded plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $5,000, the monetary jurisdictional limit of the court.
Pursuant to section 1807 of the Uniform City Court Act, the standard of review on an appeal of a small claims judgment is whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the
parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" ( see Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707; see also Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584). The deference which an appellate court normally accords 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). Even if an appellate court differs with a small claims court on an arguable point of fact or law, the appellate court may 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 2003]; Dourado v Jordan, 2002 NY Slip Op 40394[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2002]).
Since the record in this small claims action amply supports the conclusions of the trial court, we find that the parties were afforded substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.