Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Arthur J. Doran, III, J.), entered September 8, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,800 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

Judgment modified by vacating the dismissal of defendant's counterclaim, reinstating the counterclaim, and awarding defendant the principal sum of $1,400 on its counterclaim, thereby reducing the net judgment awarded to plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,400; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action to recover a security deposit in the sum of $2,800, defendant, plaintiff's former landlord, interposed a counterclaim seeking to recover,
inter alia, rent for April 2006 in the sum of $1,400, rent arrears in the sum of $1,400 (after a monthly rent check tendered by plaintiff in 2003 was allegedly returned for insufficient funds), and reimbursement for amounts spent to repair damage to the premises.

Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court properly rendered its judgment, and provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807; see 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 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). Accordingly, a small claims judgment will not be overturned unless "the deviation from substantive law . . . [is] readily apparent and the court's determination clearly erroneous" (Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620, 621 [1986]). 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 [*2]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 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). With respect to the issue of the rent check which was allegedly returned for insufficient funds, we find that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment on that basis. However, upon a review of the record, we note that it was undisputed at trial that plaintiff failed to pay defendant the $1,400 rent due for April 2006. Defendant was, therefore, entitled to apply plaintiff's security deposit towards payment of that amount (see 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 26:36, at 311 [4th ed]). Accordingly, substantial justice requires that we vacate the dismissal of defendant's counterclaim and award defendant the principal sum of $1,400 on the counterclaim, thereby reducing the net judgment awarded to plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,400.

Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 27, 2008