Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Timothy J. Dufficy, J.), entered October 31, 2007. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.

Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a deposit of $1,250 which he had given to defendant to reserve an apartment. Defendant counterclaimed for additional damages in the amount of $2,500. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court found that plaintiff was not entitled to the return of his $1,250 payment, but that defendant had failed to prove any additional damages. Accordingly, the court dismissed both plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals from that part of the judgment which dismissed his claim.

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 e.g. 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 e.g. Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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 e.g. Vizzari v State of [*2]New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]).

The Civil Court implicitly credited defendant's testimony that plaintiff had failed to timely notify defendant of his intention not to move in. It, therefore, found that plaintiff was not entitled to the return of his $1,250 payment. As the record supports the court's conclusions, which were based in part on the credibility of the witnesses, we find that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 28, 2009