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.

Mitchell Kislowski v. Alan Bombria and Sherry Bombria

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


May 24, 2011

MITCHELL KISLOWSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAN BOMBRIA AND SHERRY BOMBRIA, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Teresa Ferrell, J.), entered August 13, 2009. The judgment, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the action.

Kislowski v Bombria

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 24, 2011

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

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover unpaid rents, the District Court, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the action. 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 (see UDCA 1804, 1807; 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 their credibility (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 District Court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Nicolai, P.J., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: May 24, 2011

20110524

© 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.