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.

Samuel Miller, Respondent v. Peter Diliberto and White Glove Touch

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


August 6, 2012

SAMUEL MILLER, RESPONDENT, --
v.
PETER DILIBERTO AND WHITE GLOVE TOUCH, APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered December 8, 2010.

Miller v Diliberto

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 6, 2012

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

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,750.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $4,940 for breach of a 10-year warranty, alleging that defendants had failed to repair damage to plaintiff's roof, which they had replaced. After a non-jury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $2,750. Defendants appeal. 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 (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The decision of a factfinder should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that his conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as his opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords him 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]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). As we find that the record supports the factfinder's determination, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: August 06, 2012

20120806

© 1992-2012 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.