Marc Weiss, appellant pro se.

Leora L. Schiffman, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), entered January 12, 2022. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,500; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $5,000 as a result of defendant's alleged breach of a contract to pay plaintiff half of the profits made at an event the parties had agreed to plan, promote, and execute together.

At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that, in November 2015, defendant approached plaintiff with the proposal of organizing, promoting, and executing social events. Defendant offered to split any profits evenly, and plaintiff accepted the offer. When the first venue chosen subsequently required a credit card to guarantee a minimum amount due to the venue, and neither plaintiff nor defendant agreed to use their credit card to guarantee the minimum, defendant found another venue to host the event. The new venue would allow the parties to collect an entrance fee for each guest and would also give them a percentage of the profits from the bar. Leading up [*2]to the December 2015 event, plaintiff worked on a flyer for the event, interacted with invited guests as a co-host on the social media page for the event, and promoted the event amongst her friends, family, and larger social network. Plaintiff further testified that, on the night of the event, she arrived at the venue an hour before the event and, throughout the evening, helped defendant get small change to facilitate receipt of the entrance fees, controlled the lines, and greeted guests. After the event, defendant denied that they had had any agreement and refused to pay her half of the profits.

Defendant testified that, when plaintiff did not want to use her credit card for the guarantee at the first venue, he decided that he did not want to work with her anymore. Defendant, therefore, procured a new venue and went about planning the event on his own. Defendant conceded that plaintiff had created the flyer for the event, and, when plaintiff kept asking to promote the event for him, he "threw her a bone" and added her as a co-host to the event page on social media. After the event, when he realized that plaintiff's feelings were hurt about not working with her, defendant testified that he offered to pay her $30 for the flyer she had made. However, defendant denied that any contract was ever entered into between him and plaintiff regarding the event at the second venue.

Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $2,000. The court did not explain how it arrived at the amount awarded.

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]). 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 Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Generally, the elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance under the contract, the defendant's breach, and resulting damages (see New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v SGRisk, LLC, 116 AD3d 1148, 1153 [2014]; JP Morgan Chase v J.H. Elec. of NY, Inc., 69 AD3d 802, 803 [2010]). Importantly, "the existence of a binding contract is not dependent on the subjective intent" of the parties, instead, "[i]n determining whether the parties entered into a contractual agreement and what were its terms, it is necessary to look, rather, to the objective manifestations of the intent of the parties as gathered by their expressed words and deeds . . . on the totality of all of these, given the attendant circumstances, the situation of the parties, and the objectives they were striving to attain" (Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v Beam Constr. Corp., 41 NY2d 397, 399-400 [1977]).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's determination that a contract existed between the parties, namely an agreement to plan, promote, and execute [*3]the social event at the second venue in exchange for sharing the profits evenly, and that plaintiff had performed her duties under the contract for the December 2015 event. The record further supports a determination that defendant breached the contract by failing to pay plaintiff her share of the profits.

Nonetheless, we find that the Civil Court's determination that plaintiff was entitled to receive the principal sum of $2,000 cannot be sustained based on the record before us. Plaintiff failed to establish what the profits were from the event. However, defendant conceded that the event made $3,000. Under the circumstances, substantial justice will be rendered (see CCA 1807) by awarding plaintiff the amount of $1,500.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,500.

BUGGS, J.P., and OTTLEY, J., concur.

VENTURA, J., taking no part.