Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated April 4, 2012. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, upon awarding plaintiff the sum of $3,000 on his claim, reduced the award by the sum of $1,000, representing a setoff to defendant on its counterclaim, for a net award to plaintiff of the principal sum of $2,000.

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

Plaintiff, the seller of a residential property, commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,000 held in escrow pending his delivery of the premises to defendant, the purchaser of the property. Defendant interposed a counterclaim to recover, among other things, the reasonable value of a stainless steel refrigerator that plaintiff had removed from the premises prior to his delivery of the premises. After a nonjury trial, the District Court determined that, with respect to defendant's counterclaim, defendant was entitled to the sum of $1,000 as the reasonable value of the refrigerator and set off this sum from the $3,000 held in escrow, thereby awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,000. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the court should not have awarded defendant the principal sum of $1,000 on its counterclaim and, thus, that a judgment should be entered in his favor in the principal sum of $3,000.

Appellate review of a small claims judgment is limited to the determination of whether substantial justice has been done according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1807; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707 [1997]). 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]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the District Court's determination rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d at 707).

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

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Marano, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: December 12, 2013