Opinion
2020-42 Q C
07-23-2021
Inkjet Textile Printing, Appellant, v. Superchief Gallery, Respondent.
Inkjet Textile Printing, appellant pro se. Superchief Gallery, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
Inkjet Textile Printing, appellant pro se.
Superchief Gallery, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (John C. Katsanos, J.), entered May 1, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $4,756.35 for damage to printing equipment. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.
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 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 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 A.D.2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference 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).
Here, the Civil Court found that plaintiff's witness's testimony lacked credibility and, further, that defendant refuted plaintiff's claims. Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing its alleged damages (see CCA 1804; Hindi v Wajngurt-Levy, 68 Misc.3d 128[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50939[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Jones v Jeff's Express Moving, Stor. & Trucking, 49 Misc.3d 133 [A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51454[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, we find that the judgment dismissing the action rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).
We note that this court does not consider certain documents attached to plaintiff's brief on appeal, as they are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 A.D.2d 508 [1989]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
WESTON, J.P., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.