Leon Auerbach, appellant pro se. Steve Moore, d/b/a ATM Construction, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District, (James F. Matthews, J.), entered December 4, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $4,975 for defendant's allegedly defective repair of his roof and other work. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, plaintiff contends that three months after defendant had completed the roof repair, further leakage from the roof occurred and plaintiff hired another contractor to replace the roof of his house.

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, 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 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 [*2]Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Upon a review of the record, we find that it supports the District Court's determination that plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing by competent evidence that the roof repairs were defective. Thus, the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

GARGUILO, J.P., MARANO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.