From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Gomgadeen

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Jun 13, 2014
44 Misc. 3d 128 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)

Opinion

2013-495 Q C

06-13-2014

Jason A. Martin, Respondent, v. Theresa Gomgadeen, Appellant.


PRESENT: : , J.P., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered November 22, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,400 and implicitly dismissed the counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $5,000 for property damage, breach of a lease, and failure to return security and pet deposits. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of the lease and property damage. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,400 and implicitly dismissed the 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 (see CCA 1804, 1807; 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]). 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 the 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 standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126 [2000]). As the record supports the determination of the Civil Court, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Martin v. Gomgadeen

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Jun 13, 2014
44 Misc. 3d 128 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)
Case details for

Martin v. Gomgadeen

Case Details

Full title:Jason A. Martin, Respondent, v. Theresa Gomgadeen, Appellant.

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Jun 13, 2014

Citations

44 Misc. 3d 128 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50979
993 N.Y.S.2d 644