Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered September 8, 2014. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed so much of the complaint as was asserted by Dolores Cardo.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this breach of contract action to recover the sum of $25,000 based on defendants' allegedly defective design and installation of new wooden gutters at plaintiffs' house. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff Dolores Cardo appeals.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that 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 Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]; D'Elia v 58-35 Utopia Parkway Corp., 43 AD3d 976, 977-978 [2007]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court properly determined that plaintiff Dolores Cardo failed to meet her burden of establishing that defendants' performance was defective or that any damages resulted from the alleged defective design of the new gutters. Consequently, we find no reason to disturb the judgment, insofar as appealed from.

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.