Opinion
2006-2092 S C.
Decided on January 3, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered October 2, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
In this small claims action to recover for damage caused by defendant to plaintiff's driveway, we find that the trial court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126).
The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as the court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511). This is especially true when findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses ( Richard's Home Ctr. Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254). We find that the record supports the trial court's conclusions and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.