Opinion
2015–366 Q C.
04-25-2016
Bernard SKELLY, Appellant, v. FORD LINCOLN OF QUEENS BLVD., Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered June 5, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking the return of $5,000 which he had paid to defendant, an automobile dealership, towards the purchase of a new car. During the first three days following his purchase of the vehicle, plaintiff had trouble starting it, and sought to revoke his acceptance. Despite being told by defendant's employees to take the car to the service department to be inspected, plaintiff refused and, instead, traded in the car to a second dealership and purchased a new car from that dealership. After a nonjury trial, where plaintiff presented no expert witness to support his claim that the vehicle was defective or that a defect substantially impaired its value, and where plaintiff admitted that he had never had the car serviced by any mechanic, 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, 126 [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 ).
A review of the record reveals that plaintiff failed to prove a proper basis for a revocation of his acceptance of the vehicle pursuant to UCC 2–608, in that he failed to establish that there was a defect that substantially impaired the vehicle's value.
Consequently, we find that the Civil Court's determination dismissing the action rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807 ).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
ELLIOT, J.P., WESTON and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.