Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered March 9, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,026.50 and dismissed defendants' counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $2,026.50 for unpaid fuel oil deliveries. Defendants counterclaimed to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging, among other things, fraud, harassment, loss of pay, loss of business and travel time. 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 (see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A; 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]). 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 deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see UDCA 1807-A; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). As the record supports the District Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Marano, J.P., Nicolai and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 20, 2013