Tin Yat Chin v. Hon

Full title: TIN YAT CHIN, Appellant, v. Jane HON, Defendant, and Tin Sik Chin, Jade Y…

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2, 11 & 13 Judicial Dist.

Date published: Apr 6, 2016

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 50568 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)

36 N.Y.S.3d 410

Opinion

2014-2785 Q C

04-06-2016

Tin Yat Chin, Appellant, v. Jane Hon, Defendant, -and- Tin Sik Chin, Jade Y. Hon and Jean Hon, Respondents.

WESTON, J.P., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.

PRESENT: :

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered January 30, 2014. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, dismissed so much of the action as is against defendants Tin Sik Chin, Jade Y. Hon and Jean Hon.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against his brother, Tin Sik Chin, and three nieces to recover costs associated with an alleged illegal eviction, including storage costs of his personal items. As limited by his brief, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Civil Court as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed so much of the action as was asserted against defendants Tin Sik Chin, Jade Y. Hon and Jean Hon.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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 evaluate their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court's determination provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d at 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur. Decision Date: April 06, 2016