Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), entered November 19, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,156.44.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $1,200 for unpaid architectural design work and $956.44 in finance fees related to the unpaid work. Defendant contended that the agreed-upon cost for the project was $3,500, $1,200 of which had already been paid as a retainer, and that plaintiff had completed only 10 percent of the work, which work was covered by the retainer. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the full amount sought, i.e., the principal sum of $2,156.44, finding that there was an oral agreement between the parties modifying the original written proposal, whereby plaintiff was to perform additional work not provided for in the original proposal.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties
with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804-A; 1807-A; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). The decision of a 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 given the limited scope of review (see UCCA 1807-A; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126; Slomin's, Inc. v Trerotola, 25 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52442[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). The determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510,
511 [1991]). As the record supports the City Court's conclusions, we find no basis to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. [*2]

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 25, 2011