Opinion
No. 2013–2353KC.
10-15-2015
Nathan SAMUEL, Appellant, v. 2345 OCEAN AVE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Respondent.
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered January 22, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover from defendant, his landlord, the principal sum of $500 for damage to plaintiff's personal property allegedly caused by a leak in his apartment. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed 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).
Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff established defendant's liability for the loss of his personal property, he failed to provide competent evidence of his damages. To establish damages for the loss of personal property, there must be some evidence of the property's value at the time of the loss, which value can be shown by means of testimony regarding the property's “original cost, age and condition at the time of the [loss]” (Slepoy v. Kliger, 26 Misc.3d 126 [A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 52603[U], *3 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Henderson v. Holley, 112 A.D.2d 190 1985 ). A small claims court is not bound by the rules of evidence (CCA 1804), and an owner of personal property “familiar with its quality and condition, may testify as to [the property's] value” (Korn v. American Airlines, Inc., 11 Misc.3d 87, 88–89 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]; see also Fassett v. Fassett, 101 A.D.2d 604, 605 1984; 36 N.Y. Jur 2d, Damages §§ 82, 87] ). Here, plaintiff failed to provide competent evidence of the property's value at the time of the loss.
As the judgment in this case is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.