Anglin v. Vranizan

Anglin v Vranizan (2020 NY Slip Op 51299(U)) [*1] Anglin v Vranizan 2020 NY Slip Op 51299(U) [69 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on October 30, 2020 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on October 30, 2020 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ 2019-910 K C Duane C. Anglin, Appellant, against Nicole R. Vranizan, Respondent. Duane C. Anglin, appellant pro se. Nicole R. Vranizan, respondent pro se (no brief filed). Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered January 9, 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 $2,000 for "property improperly withheld" by defendant. 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 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2006]). 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]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the [*2]Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807). Plaintiff's contention about a security deposit is not properly before this court, as it is being raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]; Pavlova v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 59 Misc 3d 150[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50833[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]). We note that this court does not consider documents attached to plaintiff's brief on appeal, as they are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: October 30, 2020