Rivera v. Cruz

<div>Rivera v Cruz - 2026 NY Slip Op 50723(U)

<div> skip to main content </div>

<div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div>

<div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div>

<nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Rivera v Cruz</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 50723(U)</p> <p>May 14, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Term, First Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.</p> </div> <div><b>Digest-Index Classification: </b>Courts—Small Claims--Substantial Justice--Damages</div> <div> <p>Mariela Rivera, Plaintiff-Appellant,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Joel Cruz; JCR Corp a/k/a JCR Services Group Corp., Defendants-Respondents.</p> </div> <p>Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department</p> <p>Decided on May 14, 2026</p> <p>570391/26</p> <p>Present: James, P.J., Brigantti, Perez, JJ. </p> <p> </p><p>Plaintiff, as limited by her brief, appeals from so much of a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Dana M. Catanzaro, J.), entered November 24, 2025, after trial, as limited her recovery of damages to the principal sum of $242.78.</p> <p></p>[*1] <p><b>Per Curiam.</b></p> <p>Judgment (Dana M. Catanzaro, J.), entered November 24, 2025, affirmed, without costs.</p> <p>The amount of the damage award issued in plaintiff's favor upon the trial of this small claims action achieved "substantial justice" (CCA 1804, 1807) and was neither inadequate nor unreasonable. There is no record support for any additional recovery, particularly in the absence of competent evidence establishing that a contract to install soundproof windows existed between the parties or that the other home improvement services rendered were defective or resulted in damage to plaintiff's property. Particularly in the context of small claims cases, the decision of the fact-finding court is entitled to deference where it rests in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], <i>lv dismissed </i>95 NY2d 898 [2000]).</p> <p>We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. </p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> <p>I concur I concur I concur</p> <p>Decision Date: May 14, 2026</p> </div>

<div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div>

</div>