Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Philip S. Straniere, J.), entered April 23, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $98.65.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant had failed to properly credit her deposit upon her purchase of an automobile from defendant. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court found that plaintiff had overpaid by one dollar and awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1.36 (which sum included interest), plus a $50.00 penalty pursuant to General Business Law § 349, after finding that defendant had engaged in a "deceptive business practice" by not adequately disclosing and explaining to plaintiff how the upgrades plaintiff chose accounted for the increased price of the vehicle. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804). 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]).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to increase the amount awarded to plaintiff. Plaintiff, admittedly, had no documentary proof that she gave defendant an extra $1,000 deposit that was not credited to her, and the court did not believe her testimony that she had. Moreover, the evidence supported the finding that the upgrades plaintiff chose accounted for the increased price of the vehicle. Finally, the court properly calculated a one dollar discrepancy between the down payment receipts in evidence and the payments credited to plaintiff on the invoice. Consequently, we conclude that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.