SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
November 26, 2010
KYRIAKI BARBALIOS, RESPONDENT,
SKIN DEEP CENTER FOR COSMETIC ENHANCEMENT, LLC AND DARREN O'ROURKE,
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), entered May 27, 2009. The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,520.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Iannacci, J.P.,
NICOLAI and MOLIA, JJ
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs. Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,520 that she had paid to defendants for a skin improvement treatment procedure which had allegedly resulted in no discernable improvement. After a non-jury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,520, finding that defendants had engaged in deceptive practices in order to mislead plaintiff into undergoing the skin treatment procedure. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 ; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 ).
The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 ). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 ; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 ). As the record supports the District Court's conclusions (see General Business Law §§ 349, 350; Karlin v IVF Am., 93 NY2d 282 ), we find no reason to disturb the judgment.
Iannacci, J.P., Nicolai and Molia, JJ., concur. Decision Date:
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.