Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered July 31, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for allegedly defective merchandise he had purchased from defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found in favor of defendant and dismissed the action. 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 (UDCA 1804, 1807; 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 Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). We find that the record supports the District Court's implicit determination that, while plaintiff properly rejected the first delivery of furniture (see UCC 2-601), defendant subsequently made a proper conforming tender (see UCC 2-508). Accordingly, the judgment dismissing the action is affirmed.

Molia, J.P., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 25, 2011