From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jaguar v. Catwell

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts
Dec 5, 2011
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52209 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)

Opinion

2010-2276 N C

12-05-2011

Heritage Jaguar, Respondent, v. Rudolph Catwell, Appellant.


PRESENT: : , J.P., NICOLAI and MOLIA, JJ

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered February 17, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,090.80 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $982.31, representing the payment due for plaintiff's repair of defendant's vehicle. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging that plaintiff had caused damage to his vehicle which had required him to replace the vehicle's engine. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

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]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the 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]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see UDCA 1807-A; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record supports the trial court's conclusions, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Nicolai and Molia, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jaguar v. Catwell

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts
Dec 5, 2011
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52209 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)
Case details for

Jaguar v. Catwell

Case Details

Full title:Heritage Jaguar, Respondent, v. Rudolph Catwell, Appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts

Date published: Dec 5, 2011

Citations

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52209 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)