Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered December 6, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the purchase price of a used vehicle which he allegedly had purchased from defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that, one day after he had purchased the vehicle from defendant, his mechanic told him that the vehicle was defective. Defendant denied having sold the vehicle to plaintiff. Following the trial, the District Court dismissed the action.

Appellate review of a small claims judgment is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807). In general, a court's determination following a nonjury trial "should not be disturbed unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses" (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1990]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses (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 Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

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, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).The District Court dismissed the action, apparently finding that, based on the credible evidence, plaintiff had failed to establish his claim. 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. [*2]
Decision Date: December 20, 2013