Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered March 21, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $150 on his counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a lawn services provider, commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $637.53 for unpaid services. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $912.50, representing the cost of replacing three lawn lights allegedly broken by plaintiff. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $150 on his counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals.

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]). Moreover, 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 the 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]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). The evidence adduced at trial supports the District Court's determination that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant owed it any monies for the services it had rendered in November 2010, and for the final cleanup bill for 2010. In addition, the evidence established that plaintiff had agreed, in May 2011, to provide defendant with a $150 credit for a broken light. Plaintiff's remaining contention lacks merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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