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.

Robert Mason v. Eagle P & M Installations

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


April 26, 2011

ROBERT MASON, APPELLANT,
v.
EAGLE P & M INSTALLATIONS, INC.,
RESPONDENT.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County (Bonnie Kraham, J.), entered September 4, 2009.

Mason v Eagle P & M Installations, Inc.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 26, 2011

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

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $10.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for defendant's alleged breach of a contract to do certain plumbing work. After a non-jury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $10. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy. 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]). We find that the record supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.

Nicolai, P.J., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur. Decision

Date: April 26, 2011

20110426

© 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.