Opinion
10-26-2011
Thomas F. Liotti, Respondent, v. Reawatti Basdeo, Appellant.
PRESENT: : , J.P., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Robert A. Bruno, J.), entered December 7, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $835 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $835 for unpaid legal services rendered. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $3,500, contending that she had been billed for services that had never been rendered by plaintiff. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court found in favor of plaintiff, awarding him the principal sum of $835 and dismissing defendant's counterclaim.
Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited scope of review (see UDCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126; Slomin's, Inc. v Trerotola, 25 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52442[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the 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]). As the record supports the District Court's conclusions, we find no basis to disturb the judgment.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Molia, J.P., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.