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.

Anthony A. Galatianos, Appellant v. Nick & Son Auto Center

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


December 5, 2011

ANTHONY A. GALATIANOS, APPELLANT,
v.
NICK & SON AUTO CENTER, INC., RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered on February 24, 2010.

Galatianos v Nick & Son Auto Ctr., Inc.

Decided on December 5, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ

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

ORDERED that judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for defective repairs and damage to his automobile. The Civil Court dismissed the action, finding that plaintiff's testimony was incredible. On appeal, plaintiff contends that defendant failed to complete repairs on his car and that the car was vandalized the second time he brought it to defendant.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 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 a 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, find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Pesce, PJ., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 05, 2011

20111205

© 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.