Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (Frank M. Mora, J.), entered December 9, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,445.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

At a nonjury trial of this small claims action, the parties testified that plaintiff had purchased a used car with in excess of 137,000 miles from defendant dealer, and that the car came with a warranty for 1,000 miles or 30 days, whichever occurred first. Plaintiff claimed that she had immediately experienced problems with the sunroof and air conditioner, and that, within a short time after the purchase, the windows had failed to function properly, the thermostat had malfunctioned, there had been problems with the fuel line and the check engine light, and the car had leaked anti-freeze. She also claimed that defendant had made express promises to repair the air conditioning and the sunroof. Defendant's representative acknowledged that defendant had given plaintiff a 1,000 mile or 30-day warranty but asserted that the problems plaintiff experienced either fell outside the scope of the warranty or had occurred after the warranty had expired. [*2]

Following the trial, the City Court credited plaintiff's testimony that the car had been defective from the date of purchase, and that plaintiff had immediately and repeatedly complained to defendant about her problems with the car. Judgment was awarded to plaintiff in the principal sum of $4,445, the purchase price of the car.

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 125, 126 [2000]). 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]).

Whether we view this case as involving the breach of an express warranty (see UCC 2-313), the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (see UCC 2-314), or a revocation of acceptance of the car (see UCC 2-608), we find that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Consequently, we conclude that the City Court's judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807).

We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 03, 2013