Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Howard G. Lane, J.), entered June 15, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment which dismissed its commercial claims action seeking to recover for defendant's alleged failure to pay a deposit on the purchase of a motor vehicle. 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]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (cf. Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of act 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]). In light of defendant's testimony with regard to the making of the $3,000 deposit and the fact that plaintiff permitted defendant to take possession of the subject vehicle, there is adequate support in the record for the lower court's determination dismissing plaintiff's action.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 07, 2008