Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (William J. O'Brien, J.), entered April 24, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action to recover for allegedly fraudulent charges made on plaintiff's Bank of America debit card, 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 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

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 e.g. Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544
[1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see e.g. Williams, 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 e.g. Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]).

Defendant argues that the court below erred in finding that plaintiff's wallet, including his debit card, was lost on December 28, 2006 and that plaintiff reported the loss to defendant on December 29, 2006. However, the record in this case supports the trial court's conclusions. We note that, although plaintiff sometimes confused the dates in his testimony, he corrected himself. Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, there is no reason to disturb [*2]the judgment.

McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 07, 2008