Agreement before the court included the terms to which he had agreed, and testified that
any differences among the copies of the Agreement concerned terms that related to the
other parties to the Agreement but not to plaintiff.
Following the trial, the Civil Court (Lisa Lewis, J.) declined to enforce the
Agreement. It awarded plaintiff a judgment in the principal sum of $7,034.52, which
included $2,200 for mold remediation, $2,984.52 in prepaid rent, and a $1,850 security
deposit (see Swotinsky v
Samson Mgt. LLC, 75 Misc 3d 1214[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50487[U] [Civ Ct,
Queens County 2022]).
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 assess their
credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade
v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). Although 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), in reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial,
the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the
judgment it finds warranted by the facts (see Christopher v Topakian, 77 Misc 3d 126[A], 2022 NY
Slip Op 51101[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022]; see also