Opinion
2007-1099 S C.
Decided July 10, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered August 22, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,400.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
In this commercial claims action to recover a real estate broker's commission, an issue of credibility was presented as to whether there was an agreement that defendants would pay a brokerage commission. A real estate agent employed by plaintiff testified that she told defendant Richard Wilson that she was a realtor and that a broker's fee of one month's rent was due if defendants rented the house that she showed them. She further testified that she asked defendant Richard Wilson if he had a problem paying such fee, and that he answered in the negative. Defendants testified that they were never informed that they were responsible for the payment of a broker's fee to plaintiff in the event they rented the house until after they rented the house.
The determination of issues of credibility is for the trier of fact as it had the 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 it could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, supra). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part or the Commercial Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UDCA 1807-A; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). After reviewing the record, we find that the lower court's resolution of the aforementioned issue of credibility in favor of plaintiff was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.
Accordingly, the judgment in favor of plaintiff rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law ( see UDCA 1807-A).
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.