Opinion
No. 2022-431 K C
04-28-2023
Danielle J. Phillips, Appellant, v. Trevor Waterman and Sophia Grant, Respondents.
Danielle J. Phillips, appellant pro se. Trevor Waterman and Sophia Grant, respondents pro se (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
Danielle J. Phillips, appellant pro se.
Trevor Waterman and Sophia Grant, respondents pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Keisha M. Alleyne, J.), entered May 5, 2022. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's action.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendants, her former landlord and realtor, respectively, to recover, among other things, her security deposit, first month's rent, broker's fees, and damages for breach of lease and pain and suffering. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court entered a judgment dismissing the action.
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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [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).
Here, a review of the record indicates that substantial justice was not done between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807). The Civil Court heard testimony but did not permit plaintiff to present certain documents in support of her claims as was her right pursuant to substantive law (see Cuevas v Rowinski, 70 Misc.3d 130[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51522[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Sakie v Amin, 46 Misc.3d 147 [A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50230[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and VENTURA, JJ., concur.