Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Mary Kim Dollard, J.), entered November 22, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded defendant Michael Brooks the principal sum of $1,351.34 on his counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for breach of contract. Michael Brooks (defendant) interposed a counterclaim seeking to recover the security deposit paid to plaintiff in the sum of $1,900. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000 and, in a separate judgment, awarded defendant the principal sum of $1,351.34 on his counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment awarding defendant the principal sum of $1,351.34 on his counterclaim.

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 (CCA 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 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 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 trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: April 25, 2012