Opinion
No. 2014–1148KC.
07-07-2015
Vladimir LEVITAN, Appellant, v. Joseph SCIULARA, Respondent.
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered December 3, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $1,000, representing $713 for an unpaid commission and $287 for time spent in court. The evidence adduced at a nonjury trial showed that defendant had employed plaintiff as a sales agent; that soon after plaintiff had begun working for defendant, the parties had traveled together to a realtors' conference; and that defendant had paid the majority of the parties' expenses at the conference. It was uncontested that defendant had agreed to pay plaintiff 50% of the brokerage fees received on sales plaintiff brokered, and that defendant had paid plaintiff $713 less than plaintiff was entitled to receive as commission on one of plaintiff's sales. Defendant asserted that he had informed plaintiff that they would split the bills for the realtors' conference and that the $713 deduction had been to reimburse him for plaintiff's share of the expenses incurred in connection with that conference, whereas plaintiff claimed that defendant had never told him that he was expected to pay for his share of the costs, and that defendant had invited him to the conference as a nonpaying guest. Following the trial, the Civil Court found in favor of defendant dismissing the action.
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” (CCA 1807 ; see CCA 1804 ; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [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 A.D.2d 564 [1992] ; Kincade v. Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 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 A.D.2d at 126 ).The judgment in this action turned on a credibility finding. The trial court had the opportunity to evaluate the evidence, and implicitly found that defendant's version of the facts was more credible. As the court's determination is supported by the record and provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807 ), we find no basis to disturb the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.