Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Philip Goglas, J.), entered December 6, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,297.56.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for damages incurred as a result of a defective computer system sold to them by defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiffs testified that, after making numerous attempts to have the system repaired, they were forced to purchase a new system. Defendants did not rebut that testimony. After the trial, the District Court awarded plaintiffs only the cost of their attempts to have the system repaired, finding that the repairs in question had corrected the problems. Plaintiffs appeal on the ground of inadequacy.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment failed to provide 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 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 Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see UDCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

The evidence in this case supports the District Court's implicit determinations, based in part upon the credibility of the witnesses, that the computer system sold by defendant did not work, and that plaintiffs gave timely notice to defendant of the problems with the computer system and a sufficient opportunity to correct those problems. However, there does not appear to be any support in the record for the District Court's finding that the repairs, which plaintiffs had paid others to do, actually fixed the problems, as there was unrebutted testimony from plaintiffs that the repairs did not fix the system and that plaintiffs ultimately had to purchase a new system. Consequently, we find that the award in favor of plaintiffs was inadequate.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

Marano, J.P., Nicolai and LaSalle, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: January 29, 2014