Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Catherine M. DiDomenico, J.), entered January 4, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,459.90 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action seeking payment of homeowner common charges, defendant asserted, as defenses and counterclaims, that she was deprived of the benefit of a parking space and that she was not properly billed. After trial, the court found that the credible evidence established that defendant was not deprived of a parking space and that the bills were in proper form.

In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807). The decision of the court
as trier of fact will not be disturbed upon appeal where it represents a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Glenbriar Co. v Lipsman, 11 AD3d 352 [2004]). This standard applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). In the case at bar, the court's determination that defendant received plaintiff's bills is amply supported by the record, which included defendant's letter requesting bills in another format. In addition, defendant failed to establish that she was deprived of parking privileges, since she admitted using the development's parking garage up to the time of trial. In any event, plaintiff did not establish the amount of damages sustained as a result of the alleged deprivation.

The issues which defendant seeks to raise with respect to her claims of plaintiff's alleged fraud and deceptive business practices, which claims were asserted in a prior action which the court dismissed, are not properly brought up for review on this appeal from the small claims [*2]judgment.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 7, 2007