Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), dated April 11, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded defendants the net principal sum of $2,200 on their counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover her security deposit in the sum of $2,200 and the defendants, the former landlords of plaintiff, counterclaimed seeking rental arrears in the sum of $4,400. The trial court found that plaintiff had breached the lease by vacating the apartment two months prior to the expiration of the lease. The court below ruled that plaintiff was entitled to the return of her security deposit and defendants were entitled to two months' rent resulting in a net judgment in defendants' favor of $2,200 on their counterclaim. Upon a review of the record, we are of the opinion 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, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]; see also Holy Props. v Cole Prods., 87 NY2d 130 [1995]; Becar v Flues, 64 NY 518 [1876]).

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 [1990]). 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 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 [*2]evaluate the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This is especially true when findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]). We find that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 24, 2007