able testimony, plaintiff proffered nothing to justify awarding
him $4,650 to ‘‘fix’’ the repairs. Plaintiff ’s contractor never
testified as an expert, he could not comment on what kind of
work was done at the time of the repairs, and any estimates
presented included areas that were beyond the challenged
repairs. Clearly, the trial court, as the finder of fact, considered
and flatly rejected both plaintiff’s and his contractor’s testi-
mony. I see no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment.
Accordingly, I decline to modify the Civil Court’s decision
and vote to affirm the judgment.
PESCE and SOLOMON, JJ., concur; WESTON, J.P., dissents and
votes to affirm in a separate memorandum.