Opinion
No. 2014–97 RO C.
04-07-2015
Rachel ROMERO, Appellant, v. LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT, Respondent.
Opinion
Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Richard C. Finning, J.), entered June 20, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $200.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $1,600 for “Lost wages resulting from defendants [sic ] refusal to deliver goods as agreed ... court costs and emotional distress.” After a nonjury trial, at which plaintiff testified that she had lost two days of work, or $1,040, due to issues involving defendant's failure to deliver a dishwasher, the Justice Court found that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for her alleged lost wages or emotional distress, but awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $200, plus court costs. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.
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” (UJCA 1807 ; see UJCA 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 ).
The Justice Court properly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to be reimbursed for her alleged lost wages or emotional distress, and we find no basis to disturb that determination. While plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy, she has failed to demonstrate that “substantial justice” requires an increase in the amount awarded (see UJCA 1804, 1807 ).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.