Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County (Craig E. Johns, J.), entered April 27, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,000 from Citizens Bank (Citizens) and Brenda Rind, an employee of Citizens, as a result of various transactions involving plaintiff's account with Citizens. Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of Citizens' failure to properly post a withdrawal, he had been charged insufficient-fund and overdraft fees. In addition, plaintiff asserted that, due to defendants' failure to change the date of a certain monthly automatic withdrawal made by a third party, he had incurred other fees and damages. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court dismissed the action.

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; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). The [*2]decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed on 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 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]). The testimony adduced at trial established that all the fees charged to plaintiff as a result of Citizens' failure to properly post a withdrawal had been credited back to plaintiff's account. Moreover, we find that the fees charged to plaintiff's account as a consequence of the monthly automatic withdrawals were properly charged to plaintiff. As the record supports the Justice Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 08, 2013