Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Gilbert Badillo, J.), entered June 26, 2009. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

This holdover proceeding is based on a notice of termination alleging that Houmita Abdelhakim (tenant) violated a substantial obligation of his tenancy by failing to provide access to the apartment on two specified occasions, as set forth in a notice to cure, and that tenant failed to cure the breach. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the petition, crediting tenant's testimony that he had not refused access, but rather had unsuccessfully sought to contact landlord to arrange mutually convenient dates. On appeal, landlord argues that the petition should not have been dismissed, as tenant's failure to provide access constituted a nuisance.

Contrary to landlord's contention on appeal, the facts alleged fail to support a claim of nuisance, even had one been alleged in the notice to cure (see Karagiannis v Nasr, 17 Misc 3d 133[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52069[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In any event, there is ample support in the record for the Civil Court's determination. It is well settled that the decision of a 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 [1990]), and 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]). Here, not only did tenant testify that he had attempted to [*2]schedule mutually convenient access dates, but landlord's superintendent's testimony regarding tenant's failure to allow access was contradictory. Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the Civil Court's finding that tenant did not breach a substantial obligation of the lease.

In view of the foregoing, the final judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 16, 2011