Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Douglas J. Lerose, J.), entered May 29, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, upon finding in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $4,105.42 on his cause of action and in favor of defendants in the sum of $434.39 on their counterclaim, awarded plaintiff the net principal sum of $3,671.03.

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

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking to recover $5,000 for breach of contract in connection with his purchase of real property, alleging that defendant sellers had failed to comply with the terms of the contract of sale and corresponding escrow agreement by removing certain appliances, not timely vacating the premises, and failing to deliver the premises in a broom clean condition. Defendants counterclaimed to recover $5,000 for breach of contract, alleging that they had complied with all of the terms of the contracts, but that plaintiff had failed to authorize the escrowee to release the money held in escrow. The District Court found in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $4,105.42 on his cause of action and in favor of defendants in the sum of $434.39 on their counterclaim, and awarded plaintiff a judgment in the net principal sum of $3,671.03.

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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). 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]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

As the District Court made no findings of fact as to how defendants had breached the contract of sale and escrow agreement, or as to how it had arrived at the amount it awarded, it cannot be determined upon the record presented whether the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; see also Riginio v Regal Limousine, 46 Misc 3d 147[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50227[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and [*2]the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Connolly, JJ., concur.