HIT WITH JUDGMENT FOR NOT SHOWING UP OR FAILING TO TIMELY CANCEL
After his therapist was awarded some $1200, CH appealed.
And on its review of the Small Claims case, the Appellate Term, First Department, noted that its inquiry was limited to whether “substantial justice” was achieved, “consistent with substantive law principles.”
While CH conceded that he owed his “mental health counselor” some $400, “a fair interpretation of the evidence” supported the award of the additional $800 – representing four more therapy sessions that were missed or weren’t timely cancelled (as per the therapist’s policy).
Giving deference to the Civil Court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, and in light of the “limited standard of review,” the AT1 left the judgment undisturbed.
Think someone will need some more therapy after that?
# # #
DECISION