Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Pleasant Valley, Dutchess County (Thomas A. Reed, J.), entered April 3, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,300.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover $2,300, representing the deposit he allegedly paid defendant to build a playhouse for his son, and $525, representing the cost he allegedly incurred in removing the materials from his property after defendant breached the agreement. The evidence adduced at trial established that defendant deviated from the building plans that plaintiff had approved and that
defendant would not build the playhouse according to said plans. The court awarded plaintiff $2,300, representing his deposit, but found that plaintiff did not establish that he incurred any removal costs. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

Our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1807). The deference which an appellate court normally accords to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Even if the appellate court differs with the small claims court on an arguable point of fact or law, it should not reverse absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the trial court's conclusions or that they are otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Payne v Biglin, 2 Misc 3d 127[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51694[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]).

In the instant case, after hearing the testimony, the court found plaintiff's testimony to be [*2]more credible than defendant's version of the facts. There is no reason
for this court to disturb the trial court's judgment on that basis, and, thus, it cannot be said that substantial justice was not done between the parties. We note that defendant did not assert a counterclaim or a claim for a setoff in the court below.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 25, 2008