Opinion
2008-1425 S C.
Decided June 29, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (Howard M. Bergson, J.), entered April 23, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,905.37.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and NICOLAI, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover for work, labor and services performed on behalf of defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,905.37. 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-A, 1807-A; 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 or the Commercial 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 court 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 ( see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511). We note, with regard to the setoffs which defendant sought, that defendant's proof of damages, for the most part, failed to comply with the requirements of section 1804-A of the Uniform District Court Act, which requires, in the absence of expert testimony, submission of an itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two estimates for services or repairs. As the record amply supports the District Court's conclusions, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.
Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Nicolai, JJ., concur.