Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about May 14, 2012, after trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about May 14, 2012, affirmed, without costs.

Applying the narrow standard of review governing appeals in small claims actions (see CCA 1807), and giving due deference to the trial court's factual findings and its assessment of the testimony offered by plaintiff's dental expert as unconvincing (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), we find no basis to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court in dismissing plaintiff's dental malpractice claim. A fair interpretation of the evidence, including defendant-dentist's own expert testimony (see generally Stancavage v Mirman, 309 AD2d 918, 919 [2003]), supports a finding that defendant did not deviate or depart from accepted standards of dental practice in treating plaintiff's gums or fabricating and installing veneers. It was within the province of the court, as factfinder, to choose among conflicting expert opinions (see Steginsky v Gross, 46 AD3d 671 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 19, 2013