WEISBERG v. BEKRITSKY (2019)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who had been performing creative design services for defendant, commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $ 5,000, allegedly due for work she had performed for defendant from January 1, 2016 to February 27, 2017. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that defendant had failed to pay her $ 2,500 for preparing a PowerPoint presentation for a particular client and additional sums for attending meetings with that client. Defendant acknowledged that plaintiff was entitled to payment for preparing the PowerPoint presentation, but claimed that he had never agreed to pay her for attending client meetings and that payment was contingent upon payment from the client. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the District Court awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $ 3,500.

In a small claims action, this court's 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, 126 [2006] ). 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 (Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

The District Court apparently found plaintiff's testimony to be more credible than defendant's testimony. 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 UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.