Opinion
No. 2011–216 N C.
2012-01-24
John J. TRANE, Appellant, v. Kambiz ERFANIAN, Respondent.
Present: MOLIA, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Tricia M. Ferrell, J.), entered June 21, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $5,000 based on a claim of dental malpractice. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found in favor of defendant, and a judgment was entered dismissing the action.
The standard of review on appeal of a small claims judgment is whether “substantial justice has ... been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UDCA 1807). Resolution of issues of credibility is for the trier of fact, since it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses ( see McGuirk v. Mugs Pub, 250 A.D.2d 824 [1998];Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v. Kraft, 199 A.D.2d 254 [1993] ), and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that its determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v. Menotti, 160 A.D.2d 544 [1990] ). The deference normally accorded to the credibility determinations of a trial court “applies with greater force” in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal (UDCA 1807; see Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126 [2000] ).
The plaintiff in a dental malpractice action must establish that the defendant departed from good and accepted dental practice and that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (Cohen v. Kalman, 54 AD3d 307 [2008];Knutson v. Sand, 282 A.D.2d 42 [2001] ). Although small claims courts are held to a more relaxed standard concerning certain statutory rules of evidence ( seeUDCA 1804), a plaintiff in a small claims action for dental malpractice generally must establish the elements of malpractice through expert testimony ( see Cava v. Fox, 22 Misc.3d 132[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 52648 [U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; Crennan v. Omnicare Dental, 9 Misc.3d 127[A], 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 51503[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005] ).
A review of the record in the present case indicates that plaintiff failed to establish, through expert testimony, the elements of dental malpractice. Accordingly, as the District Court's determination provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law ( seeUDCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.