From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Spence

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9 and 10 Judicial Dist.
May 22, 2014
43 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

No. 2012–1912WC.

05-22-2014

Margaret ROBINSON, Respondent–Appellant, and Leroy Robinson, Respondent, v. Everton SPENCE, Appellant–Respondent, and Ever Extreme Auto Center, Defendant.


Opinion

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Everton Spence, is affirmed, without costs; and it is further,

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

In this small claims action, plaintiffs seek to recover the sum of $2,000 for defendant's allegedly improper repair of their automobile. After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $900. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Everton Spence, provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807 ; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000];Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126 [2000] ).

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's determination could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v. Menotti, 160 A.D.2d 544 [1990] ). 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 A.D.2d 564 [1992];Kincade v. Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 510, 511 [1991] ). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d at 126). As the record supports the City Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Everton Spence, is affirmed. As the cross appeal has not been timely perfected, it is dismissed as abandoned.

IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Robinson v. Spence

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9 and 10 Judicial Dist.
May 22, 2014
43 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Robinson v. Spence

Case Details

Full title:Margaret ROBINSON, Respondent–Appellant, and Leroy Robinson, Respondent…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9 and 10 Judicial Dist.

Date published: May 22, 2014

Citations

43 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50884
993 N.Y.S.2d 646