Opinion
2009-1128 S C.
Decided June 11, 2010.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (James P. Flanagan, J.), dated March 30, 2009. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.
ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for allegedly defective electrical work, and defendant interposed a counterclaim for monies allegedly due on a separate electrical repair. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $505.11 on its counterclaim. As limited by her brief, plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed her cause of action, arguing that defendant failed to properly perform certain work under their agreement. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, provided 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 the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511). We find that the record supports the District Court's determination and, accordingly, affirm the judgment, insofar as appealed from.
Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.