Opinion
No. 2013–2238 N C.
04-09-2015
William C. PADULA, Respondent, v. GREAT AMERICAN RESTORATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant.
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Douglas J. Lerose, J.), entered May 22, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,971.69 and dismissed the counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $4,378.95, alleging that defendant caused damage to plaintiff's vinyl kitchen floor while extracting water from plaintiff's basement. Plaintiff paid $8,000 of the $9,450.64 that he admitted he owed defendant on the water extraction contract, leaving a conceded balance due of $1,450.64. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $2,952, representing the $1,450.64 and an additional balance that it believed remained on the parties' contract. After a nonjury trial at which plaintiff submitted two estimates for repairs, one for $4,378.95 and the other for $3,421.69, the District Court found that defendant was liable for the damage to plaintiff's floor, dismissed the counterclaim and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,971.69. Defendant appeals.
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” (UDCA 1807 ; see UDCA 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 ).
Upon a review of the record, we are of the opinion that plaintiff established defendant's liability for the damage to the kitchen floor. Moreover, plaintiff's two estimates from contractors established the value and necessity of the repairs to the floor (see UDCA 1804 ). The court properly determined that plaintiff was entitled to the lesser of the two estimates, i.e., $3,421.69, as fair compensation for the damage to the floor. It appears that the court then deducted the amount that it found plaintiff owed defendant on the contract, i.e., $1,450, in arriving at a[*2] judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1,971.69. We note that even though the court dismissed the counterclaim, it concluded that the $1,450 which plaintiff owed on the contract was to be used as a setoff to plaintiff's damages award.
The court seemingly overlooked the sixty-four cents also owed.
--------
As the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807 ), the judgment is affirmed.
TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.