Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Billy Pittman and Ellen Pittman v. Orange County Transmission

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


April 22, 2011

BILLY PITTMAN AND ELLEN PITTMAN,
APPELLANTS,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSMISSION,
RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Washingtonville, Orange County (Joseph G. McKay, J.), entered November 3, 2008.

Pittman v Orange County Transmission

Decided on April 22, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover for the allegedly defective repair of their automobile. After a non-jury trial, the Justice Court dismissed the action, finding that plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their claim. 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 (UJCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The decision of a 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 [1990]). 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 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). Based on a review of the record, we find that the Justice Court properly determined that plaintiffs had failed to establish that defendant's repair of their automobile was defective. As the record supports the trial court's determination, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: April 22, 2011

20110422

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.