Opinion
No. 2013–2012 OR C.
04-07-2015
Monica MARS, Respondent, v. Marcel WITSCHARD, Appellant.
Opinion
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against her former landlord to recover the sum of $4,000, representing her security deposit in the sum of $1,000, a utility bill and moving expenses. Defendant interposed a counterclaim in the sum of $5,000 to recover expenses which he had allegedly incurred to clean the premises after plaintiff had vacated and to replace the stove. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court found that plaintiff was entitled to receive the sum of $1,000 on her cause of action and that defendant was entitled to recover the sum of $550 on his counterclaim, as the estimated cost of cleaning materials that defendant would require to clean the premises. Defendant appeals from a judgment which awarded plaintiff the net principal sum of $450.
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” (UCCA 1807 ; see UCCA 1804 ; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 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 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 evidence adduced at trial indicates that the City Court considered the estimates for cleaning, which defendant presented in support of his counterclaim, and declined to award defendant the sum which his counterclaim sought for replacement of the stove. Upon a review of the record, we find that the court's determination provided the parties with substantial justice (see UCCA 1804, 1807 ).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.