Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Loren Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated May 24, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $184.46.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this commercial claims action to recover for electrical services, the court, after a nonjury trial, awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $184.46. 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 (CCA 1804-A, 1807-A; 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]). 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 Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]; A-Expert Exterminating Co., Inc. v Kornblum, 19 Misc 3d 135[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50710[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). The deference accorded to a trial court's determinations of credibility applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court, given the limited standard of review (see Personal Touch Tours, Ltd. v Hudson River Adventures, 20 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51411[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). We find that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment. [*2]

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 31, 2008