Opinion
2005-1641 SC.
Decided July 12, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered February 14, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $672.00.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and LIPPMAN, JJ.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover monies that she paid to defendant for plumbing services which services she claims were not properly performed by defendant. At trial, plaintiff showed that she was required to engage the services of a second plumber to repair her boiler only four hours after defendant left and refused to return. Upon a review of the record, we find that the trial court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v. Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v. Menotti, 160 AD2d 544). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court ( see Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses thereby affording it a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( McGuirk v. Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824; Richard's Home Ctr. Lbr. v. Kraft, 199 AD2d 254; Vizzari v. State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v. Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511).
Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Lippman, JJ., concur.