Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered November 23, 2010. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, awarded defendant the net principal sum of $7,763 on his counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, defendant's former tenant, commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $10,705.67. Defendant interposed a counterclaim. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that she had incurred expenses for an exterminator as a result of an infestation of bed bugs and rodents. She also testified that she had paid a security deposit to defendant. Defendant presented evidence that he had paid $10,618 to repair damage to the premises. The Civil Court determined that both parties were credible witnesses and awarded judgment to defendant in the net principal sum of $7,763 on his counterclaim, after deducting an amount the court found plaintiff was entitled to as her damages. As limited by her brief, plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as awarded defendant the net principal sum of $7,763 on his counterclaim. [*2]

Plaintiff argues on appeal only that the Civil Court erred in failing to instruct her that she had a right to defend against defendant's counterclaim and in not affording her an opportunity to call, in support of her defense to defendant's counterclaim, a witness who had testified in support of plaintiff's cause of action, since the court had excused that witness after she had finished testifying in support of plaintiff's cause of action. However, the record shows that plaintiff made no applications to the court or otherwise asked that her witness be retained. It is well settled that a plaintiff who appears pro se does so at her own peril and acquires no greater right than that of any other litigant (see Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995 [1988]; Nawal v Silva, 20 Misc 3d 145[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51875[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

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]). Moreover, 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]). As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment, insofar as appealed from.

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 01, 2013