Opinion
2004-1018 S C.
Decided June 27, 2005.
Appeal by plaintiff from a small claims judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County (G. Murphy, J.), entered March 12, 2004, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
Before: PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and COVELLO, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover damages based on her claim that the roof installed on her home by defendant's company leaked. Defendant testified that while there was a water leak in plaintiff's house, the source of the leak was not the roof. Plaintiff conceded that she had a leak due to a plumbing problem, but she asserted that the roof leaked as well. The court found defendant credible and rejected plaintiff's version on the ground that her claim of improper workmanship by defendant was speculative at best in the absence of expert testimony to support her position. In any event, plaintiff failed to establish the necessity of the repairs she claimed or its cost ( see UDCA 1804). Reversal is only warranted if the record on appeal demonstrates that the judgment is clearly erroneous ( see Ross v. Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Moses v. Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707; Makas v. Every, 224 AD2d 793; Forte v. Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620). In the instant case, a review of the record indicates that there is support for the court's determination. Accordingly, substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law ( see UDCA 1807; Moses, 236 AD2d 706, supra; see also Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126).