Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered April 29, 2008. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant Chantale Jeanmary the principal sum of $3,467 on her counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that defendant Chantale Jeanmary's counterclaim is dismissed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover use and occupancy for four months (April, May, June and July of 2007) from Chantale Jeanmary (defendant), his former tenant, and others. Defendant disputed plaintiff's claim and counterclaimed, alleging at trial that mold in the subject apartment had ruined her bedroom set. Defendant submitted proof that the bedroom set had cost her $2,217. After the nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed plaintiff's claim and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,467 on her counterclaim.

In dismissing plaintiff's claim, the court apparently found defendant's testimony to be more credible than plaintiff's. The trier of fact 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]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in [*2]the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (CCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). As the court's determination with respect to plaintiff's claim is supported by the record, the judgment, insofar as it dismissed plaintiff's cause of action, 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, 269 AD2d at 126).

However, there is no support in the record for the court's award of $3,467 on defendant's counterclaim, as defendant failed to submit any proof that her bedroom set was damaged or that the damage was caused by mold conditions in the apartment. Accordingly, because the award of $3,467 in defendant's favor did not provide substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807; Ross, 269 AD2d 584; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126), the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 06, 2009