Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered February 27, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover damages for breach of a warranty to repair or replace a defective whirlpool tub. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the sum of $5,000. This appeal ensued.

The standard of review on an appeal from a small claims judgment is whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807). A small claims judgment may not be reversed absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the court's conclusions, or that the court's determination is otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620 [1986]; see also Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167 [1976]).

Resolution of issues of credibility is for the trier of fact, since it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses (see McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]; Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]), and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that said determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens, 160 AD2d 544). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UDCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to [*2]disturb the District Court's credibility determination in favor of plaintiff.

The instant action was commenced against "Joe Nastasi d/b/a The Tub Factory." At the mandatory arbitration hearing (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] part 28), the arbitrator made a finding that defendant had been sued in an incorrect name and amended the caption accordingly (see UDCA 1814 [c]). The District Court, at the trial de novo, determined that the true name under which defendant was conducting business was the name originally sued upon, and not the name which the defense witness claimed at trial. Contrary to defendant's contentions, there was ample evidence in the trial record to support such determination. Therefore, it was appropriate for the court to direct the clerk of the court to enter judgment against "Joe Nastasi d/b/a The Tub Factory."

Accordingly, since "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

Molia, J.P., Scheinkman and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 14, 2009