Opinion
2014-934 S C
11-30-2015
Joseph D. Koke, Appellant, v. Christopher Nappe, Respondent.
PRESENT: :
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County (Richard A. Ehlers, J.), entered January 30, 2014. The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated November 1, 2013, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,000 on his counterclaim.
ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated November 1, 2013 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered January 30, 2014 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $3,000, alleging that defendant had failed to pay him, pursuant to a written contract, for the installation of pavers on a patio and around a pool. Defendant counterclaimed to recover his $3,000 down payment due to the alleged improper installation of the pavers. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court determined that the pavers had not been installed properly, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,000 on his counterclaim.
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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, 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).
Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant established that plaintiff had improperly installed the pavers. Moreover, defendant proved the reasonable value and necessity of the repairs, by submitting two estimates showing the cost to remedy the defects (see UJCA 1804; Bellizzi v Huntley Estates, 3 NY2d 112 [1957]). Consequently, the court properly dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,000 on his counterclaim.
As the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see UJCA 1804, 1807), it is affirmed.
Marano, P.J., and Connolly, J., concur.
Garguilo, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: November 30, 2015