SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts
March 5, 2013
CATNIP AND CARROTS VET HOSPITAL, P.C.,
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (David W. McAndrews, J.), entered April 14, 2011.
Catnip & Carrots Vet Hosp., P.C. v Chaikin
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 5, 2013
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., and IANNACCI, J.
The judgment, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $3,587.25 for unpaid veterinary services. After a non-jury trial, the District Court dismissed the action.
Appellate review of a commercial claims judgment is limited to determining whether substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807-A; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 ). 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 e.g. Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 ). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 ). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record supports a finding that defendant did not, either personally or through an agent acting on her behalf, ever authorize plaintiff to perform the veterinary services which are the subject of this action, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., and Iannacci, J., concur.
Decision Date: March 05, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.