BRITO v. BOARD OF MANAGERS MAPLE ARMS CONDO (2022)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action for reimbursement of a plumbing bill in the amount of $3,500, contending that the cost of the repair to a pipe was defendant condominium association's responsibility, as the subject pipe was within the common area. Defendant counterclaimed, claiming plaintiff was responsible for damages in the amount of $5,000 for causing and failing to fix a water leak within his defined home/unit which caused damage to the common areas/garage of the condominium building. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $2,929.64 on its counterclaim.

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]). 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).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination that the location of the subject pipe was within plaintiff's defined home/unit, and, therefore, that plaintiff was responsible for covering the cost of repairing the plumbing and the damaged common areas. Consequently, the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties 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.