Zack Salino, appellant pro se. All American Tree Care, Inc., respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Eric P. Press, J.), entered July 28, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,586.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,452.40; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the principal sum of $1,836 for tree pruning services it had performed, for which defendant had failed to pay. Defendant interposed a counterclaim seeking, among other things, to recover for lost wages, breach of contract, the cost to repair damage caused by plaintiff, and legal fees. At a nonjury trial, the pruning services contract entered into by the parties was admitted into evidence. Both parties agreed that cedar shake shingles on defendant's house had been scratched while the pruning work was being performed. Defendant presented proof that he had paid $200 to have the shingles repaired. A licensed arborist employed by plaintiff testified that the pruning had been done properly. Defendant testified that plaintiff had not trimmed all of the trees which were supposed to be pruned and that, in his opinion, the pruning that had been done had not been done properly. Following the trial, the City Court awarded judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,586. On appeal, defendant asserts that the total contract price was $1,836 and concedes that he paid none of that sum. However, he contends that based upon various setoffs, the maximum amount to which plaintiff is entitled is $736.

In a commercial 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" (UCCA 1807-A [a]; see UCCA 1804-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [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 [*2]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 normally accorded to the credibility determinations of a trial court applies with greater force in the Commercial Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

In awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1,586, the City Court deducted, without explanation, $250 from the unpaid contract price. Defendant contends that he is entitled to recover $200 on his counterclaim, which sum represents the cost to repair the shingles. Defendant further asserts that he is entitled to recover an additional $900 on his counterclaim, as that is what he paid to complete and fix plaintiff's work. While defendant established his entitlement to $200 for the repair of the shingles, a review of the record reveals that defendant failed to establish the scope of the work that had been performed by the other company in completing plaintiff's work, or to present proof that the other company had actually been paid. Nevertheless, as the unrebutted testimony at trial was that the untrimmed trees over defendant's driveway represented 10% of the entire contract, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it is entitled to recover 10% of the contract price, or $183.60.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by reducing the amount awarded to plaintiff to the net principal sum of $1,452.40 so as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804-A [a]; UCCA 1807-A).

BRANDS, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.