SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
January 26, 2011
CAROL C. HURLEY,
SUZUKI 112 USA, LLC,
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.; op 22 Misc 3d 1113[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52633[U]), entered January 28, 2009.
Hurley v Suzuki 112 USA, LLC
Decided on January 26, 2011
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on January 26, 2011
PRESENT: IANNACCI, J.P., NICOLAI and MOLIA, JJ
The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for defendant's allegedly defective repairs of a used car which she had purchased from defendant and had brought to defendant multiple times for repairs. After a non-jury trial, the District Court awarded judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $5,000, and this appeal by defendant ensued.
The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that its conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 ). 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 ). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see UDCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 ).
Plaintiff testified that on the date that she purchased the car, the "check engine" light came on, and that she repeatedly brought the car back to defendant for various repairs which were never adequately done. The facts show that plaintiff subsequently attempted to revoke her acceptance of the car (see UCC 2-608), which revocation was improperly refused by defendant. Under such circumstances, the District Court properly awarded plaintiff damages (see UCC 2-711, 2-712), as limited by the monetary jurisdictional limit of the Small Claims Part of the court (see UDCA 1801). As we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807), we affirm the judgment.
Iannacci, J.P., Nicolai and Molia, JJ., concur. Decision
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.