David Hughes, appellant pro se. Jeremy Trimble, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a decision of the Justice Court of the Town of New Windsor, Orange County (Noreen Calderin, J.), dated January 2, 2018, deemed from a judgment of that court entered January 10, 2018 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The judgment, upon the decision, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,164.50 on his cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of only $1,035.50 on his counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $2,772.15, alleging that defendant, his former landlord, had improperly withheld a rental security deposit. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $3,000, alleging that plaintiff's family had damaged the house. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,164.50 on his cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $1,035.50 on his counterclaim. Defendant appeals.

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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 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 [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).

It is uncontroverted that plaintiffs had provided defendant with a $3,200 security deposit, and it is well settled that a tenant's security deposit is the property of the person making the deposit (see General Obligation Law § 7-103) and must be returned at the conclusion of the tenancy unless there is proof that the tenant caused damage beyond what is attributable to ordinary wear and tear (see Pignatello v Dutchess Knolls, Inc., 51 Misc 3d 145[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50736[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]; Mazzarelli v Moniaci, 21 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51967[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Where a landlord establishes that the tenant caused such damage, it is the landlord's further burden to establish the reasonable value of the cost to repair the damage (see Mills v Lynch, 48 Misc 3d 131[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51046[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]). While the court found that defendant had established that plaintiff's family had caused some damage beyond ordinary wear and tear, defendant failed to produce sufficient proof of the reasonable value of the cost of repairs in the form of paid receipts or two itemized estimates (see UJCA 1804; Ankhbara v Sharplis-Esprit, 47 Misc 3d 145[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50699[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]). As plaintiff has not cross-appealed, substantial justice does not require that the judgment be disturbed (see UJCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.