Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Rhinebeck, Dutchess County (John B. Kane, Jr., J.), dated March 22, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,100.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff, who owns real property adjoining defendants' real property, seeks $3,000 in damages, alleging that defendants had, without permission, removed plaintiff's fence, which had been located on plaintiff's property alongside the property line. Plaintiff testified that, approximately 12 years ago, she had paid $1,650 for the fence. She produced two estimates indicating that it would cost slightly in excess of $3,000 to install a new fence. Defendants admitted that they had removed the fence, but stated that they had been erroneously told that the fence belonged to them. Defense witnesses testified that the fence, at the time of removal, was in a deteriorated condition. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,100. Defendants appeal.

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 (UJCA 1804, 1807; [*2]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]). Furthermore, 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]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams, 269 AD2d at 126).

In determining the amount to be awarded plaintiff, the Justice Court found credible, and properly took into account, the testimony regarding the deteriorated condition of the fence at the time it had been removed. As the record supports the Justice Court's valuation of the fence, we find, contrary to defendants' contention, that the award was not excessive. Consequently, there is no basis for this court to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 13, 2013