Opinion
No. 2013–2474 W C.
04-07-2015
Glenn PHILLIPS, Respondent, v. EMPIRE STATE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellant.
Opinion
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action for breach of contract, plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendant had not installed a roof system at plaintiff's house in accordance with the parties' contract, resulting in a leak. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,761, of which $1,500 represented damage which resulted from defendant's work on plaintiff's roof. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in finding that the roof was not properly installed.
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 ).
Upon a review of the record, we find that the small claims judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UCCA 1807 ). The evidence revealed that the roof leaked around the chimney only after defendant had installed it; that the chimney had been serviced with a stainless steel liner two years prior to the roof work; and that the contract between the parties called for the installation of an ice and water shield around the chimney, which had not been installed.
As the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see UCCA 1804, 1807 ), the judgment is affirmed.