WALCOTT v. GREENE (2019)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff gave a deposit to defendant in the sum of $ 1,750 on a basement apartment rental. Before plaintiff moved in, the parties agreed that the rental would not work out and that plaintiff was entitled to the return of her money. When plaintiff received only $ 500 back, she commenced this small claims action to recover the balance. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that she was owed $ 1,250 and she submitted paid receipts that had been signed by defendant. Defendant denied receiving any money from plaintiff and denied signing the receipts. Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $ 1,250.

In a small claims action, our review is limted 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).

Here, based on the evidence presented, the Civil Court found plaintiff's testimony to be more credible than that of defendant. Since the court's determination was amply supported by the evidence, we conclude that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.