Opinion
2008-1270 D C.
Decided May 22, 2009.
Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (Katherine A. Moloney, J.), entered October 10, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $116.03.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover the sum of $1,016, allegedly representing the balance of an unpaid loan as well as a telephone bill which he had paid on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff testified that he loaned defendant the sum of $1,500 and that she repaid him $600, leaving a balance of $900 owed to him. In addition, he testified that he paid defendant's $116.03 phone bill and she did not reimburse him for same. When the court asked defendant if she disputed the $116.03 phone bill, she stated that she did not. Defendant testified that plaintiff only loaned her the sum of $1,200 and she repaid him in full by means of money orders in the total sum of $900, as well as three payments in cash made by her friend on her behalf. Defendant submitted into evidence money order receipts totaling the sum of $900. After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $116.03. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.
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, 160 AD2d 544). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UCCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). After reviewing the record, we find that the City Court's resolution of the issue of credibility was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence.
Accordingly, we find that the judgment in favor of plaintiff rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law ( see UCCA 1807), and we affirm the judgment.
Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.