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.

Steven Danielson Doing Business As Danielson Electric Co., Respondent v. All In One Construction

New York SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


March 1, 2013

STEVEN DANIELSON DOING BUSINESS AS DANIELSON ELECTRIC CO., RESPONDENT, --
v.
ALL IN ONE CONSTRUCTION, LLP, DEFENDANT -AND- KAMY NETRAM, APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Monroe, Orange County (Lawrence Lezak, J.), entered May 11, 2011.

Danielson v All In One Constr., LLP

Decided on March 1, 2013

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., and IANNACCI, J.

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $583.77 as against defendant Kamy Netram and dismissed her counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for work, labor and services rendered, and for materials provided, to defendants. Defendant Kamy Netram counterclaimed to recover damages for "false suit, harassment, emotional distress, pain and suffering." Following a non-jury trial, the Justice Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $583.77 as against defendant Kamy Netram and dismissed her counterclaim.

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 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a 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]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the Justice Court rendered substantial justice between the parties to this appeal according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., and Iannacci, J., concur. Decision Date: March 01, 2013

20130301

© 1992-2013 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.