Benny Nuzzo, appellant pro se. Jerry Cardullo Iron Works, Inc., respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Cheryl M. Helfer, J.), entered March 4, 2022. 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 $2,700 for breach of contract, claiming that the railings defendant had installed on his property were defective. After an arbitration award pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR) part 28 was entered in favor of plaintiff, defendant made a demand for a trial de novo pursuant to Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR) § 28.12. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that the railings installed by defendant in front of his home were not the color he had picked out, were wobbly, and had rust stains. Defendant's operations manager testified that the color of the railings as shown in the photographs matched the color that plaintiff had picked from a color chart that was in evidence. He also stated that defendant was willing to repair the other things plaintiff had issues with but that plaintiff had prevented defendant from doing so. The District 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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 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, 511 [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 evidence supported the District Court's findings that, although the color of the railings may look different depending on the way the light hits them, the railings matched the color contracted for. Moreover, while the credible evidence established that defendant was willing to do the other repairs to the railings at no cost, the warranty did not provide that plaintiff had to only use defendant for any repairs. In any event, an itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates for services or repairs "are admissible in evidence and are prima facie evidence of the reasonable value and necessity of such services and repairs" (UDCA 1804). Here, the only evidence plaintiff submitted in support of his claim for damages were two estimates, listing a single cost to do multiple repairs and recolor the railings, which, as indicated above, were painted the color as per the contract. As the estimates were not itemized, they were insufficient to establish plaintiff's claim of damages.

Finally, defendant was entitled to request a trial de novo after arbitration pursuant to the rules governing alternative dispute resolution by arbitration (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] part 28).

In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the court's determination rendered substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

GARGUILO, P.J., EMERSON and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.