Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Stephen L. Ukeiley, J.), entered January 6, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,660.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $4,707.32 for labor and material provided to defendant, his former girlfriend. Plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of only $1,660. 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, [*2]269 AD2d at 126). 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]). As the record supports the District Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Marano, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 03, 2013