Tripi v. Yalcin

Full title: Martha I. Tripi, Respondent, -and- Richard I. Tripi, Plaintiff, v. Sal…

Court: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Dec 8, 2015

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51800 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)

Opinion

2014-1488 N C

12-08-2015

Martha I. Tripi, Respondent, -and- Richard I. Tripi, Plaintiff, v. Sal Hasim Yalcin, Appellant.

TOLBERT, J.P., IANNACCI and CONNOLLY, JJ.

PRESENT: :

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Eric Bjorneby, J.), dated August 14, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff Martha I. Tripi the principal sum of $4,000.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, Martha I. Tripi and her son, Richard I. Tripi, commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging, among other things, that they had paid defendant $4,000 to paint and spackle Martha I. Tripi's home and that defendant's work was so inadequate that they had to hire someone else to remedy it. At a nonjury trial, plaintiffs submitted a paid bill for the work that was done to cure defendant's allegedly defective work. Defendant appeals from so much of the judgment of the Civil Court as awarded plaintiff Martha I. Tripi the principal sum of $4,000.

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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 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 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 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 AD2d at 126).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the court's determination that defendant's work was defective. As the judgment, insofar as appealed from, provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807), it is affirmed.

Tolbert, J.P., Iannacci and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 08, 2015