Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), entered March 9, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $12,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff Patricia Hunt testified that she, on behalf of plaintiff G. Shepards Realty, LLC, had entered into an exclusive agreement with defendant to sell his home; that, while that agreement was still in effect, Hunt had obtained a buyer who was ready, willing and able to purchase defendant's home; and that a purchase agreement had been entered into which listed Hunt as the agent for the seller. Hunt further testified that the buyer in question had met all of the conditions laid out in the purchase agreement, and that the sale had closed on the terms set out in that agreement. The agent for the buyer also testified on behalf of plaintiffs, and her testimony agreed with Hunt's testimony in all material respects. Defendant produced no witness with personal knowledge of the facts involved herein. After the trial, the City Court found in favor of plaintiffs.

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]).

In this case, the record amply supports the City Court's conclusions, based on the credibility of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence, that plaintiffs had found a buyer who was ready, willing, and able to close on terms agreed to by defendant and that plaintiffs were entitled to the agreed-upon commission (see Lane-Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36 [1971] Sutton & Edwards, Inc. v 68-60 Austin St. Realty Corp., 70 AD3d 810 [2010]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Tolbert, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: March 27, 2014