Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered August 16, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,200 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover from defendant, her former tenant, among other things, unpaid rent for the months of February, March and April 2010. Defendant counterclaimed, seeking, among other things, the return of
$650, representing what remained of her security deposit. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,200, representing rent owed for the months of March and April 2010, and dismissed defendant's counterclaim. Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 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, 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 trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

We note that, contrary to defendant's contention, there is nothing in the trial transcript to indicate that the Civil Court did not give her an opportunity to present her case. We further note that we do not consider those factual assertions contained in
defendant's brief which, not having been presented to the Civil Court, are dehors the record (see [*2]Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 21, 2013