Opinion
2009-161 S C.
Decided December 15, 2009.
Appeal from a decision of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (Howard M. Bergson, J.), dated July 11, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered September 9, 2008 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,779 and dismissed the counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified by reducing the principal amount awarded plaintiff to the principal sum of $3,200; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action seeking to recover overpayments it made to defendant. Defendant asserted a counterclaim for nonpayment of accounting services rendered. The District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,779 and dismissed the counterclaim.
Contrary to defendant's contentions on appeal, as to liability, substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A). The issue presented on appeal is one of credibility. The resolution of issues of credibility is for the trier of fact as it had an opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses ( see McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824; Richard's Home Ctr. Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544), and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that said determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens, 160 AD2d 544). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments in the Commercial Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review ( see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). A review of the record on appeal indicates that there was sufficient support in the record for the trial court's credibility determinations.
However, the District Court erred in awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $3,779. The court arrived at its award by deducting the sum of $5,225 from plaintiff's payments of $8,904, which equals the sum of $3,679 rather than $3,779. In any event, under the circumstances presented, the judgment did not render substantial justice in that plaintiff was awarded an amount greater than the principal sum of $3,200 it sought in the action. The principal sum awarded plaintiff is reduced accordingly.
Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.