Opinion
2007-1027 W C.
Decided November 26, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Eric P. Press, J.), entered July 11, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,466.62 and, in effect, dismissed defendants' counterclaim.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and MOLIA, JJ.
In this small claims action, plaintiffs seek to recover the sum of $4,115, which defendants, plaintiffs' former landlords, retained out of plaintiffs' $6,900 security deposit. Defendants counterclaimed for arrears in rent, alleging, inter alia, that plaintiffs had occupied the subject premises after the termination of the lease. After trial, the court awarded plaintiffs $2,466.62 on their cause of action, allowing defendants to retain a portion of the security deposit representing reimbursement for work defendants performed on the house after plaintiffs moved out. The court specifically noted its finding that plaintiffs did not occupy the premises after the termination of the lease, and in effect dismissed defendants' counterclaim for rent. Defendants appeal from the judgment, arguing that plaintiffs owe them rent for occupying the premises after the termination of the lease.
In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law ( see UCCA 1807). Defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to rent arrears. To the extent that the court's decision was based upon credibility determinations with respect to the date that plaintiffs vacated the apartment, we see no basis in the record to disturb these determinations. The trier of fact "has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses" ( Nobile v Rudolfo Valetin Inc. , 21 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51962[U] [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2008]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UCCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Molia, JJ., concur.