Mieczyslaw Rowinski, appellant pro se. O'Connor, O'Connor, Hintz & Deveney, LLP (Ira E. Goldstein of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Sally E. Unger, J.), entered May 10, 2017. 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 $5,000 for damage to his property allegedly sustained during a flood on his property. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that the flooding was a result of a clogged drain on defendant's property and defendant denied that the flooding was the result of a clogged drain. Following the trial, the Civil Court found in favor of defendant and dismissed the action.

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; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). 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 [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).

Here, the record supports the Civil Court's finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant's negligence had caused the flooding on plaintiff's property. Plaintiff's remaining [*2]contentions lack merit. Consequently, we find that the court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.