Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Joy M. Watson, J.), entered April 11, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,878.91.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $3,878.91 from his former employer, based on the alleged nonpayment of wages. At a nonjury trial, it was uncontested that plaintiff had been employed by defendant for approximately eight years, that when he left defendant's employment he had had 223.39 hours of accrued unused vacation time, that defendant had paid him for 72 of those hours, and that his pay for his remaining unused vacation days would have been $3,878.91.

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).

In general, the determination of whether, upon termination, an employee is entitled to be paid for accrued vacation time is governed by the contract between the parties (see Gennes v Yellow Book of NY, Inc., 23 AD3d 520, 522 [2005]; Matter of Glenville Gage Co. v Industrial Bd. of Appeals of State of NY, Dept. of Labor, 70 AD2d 283 [1979]; Steinmetz v Attentive Care, Inc., 39 Misc 3d 148[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50905[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]). Defendant's witness testified that plaintiff had acknowledged receipt of an employees' manual, that the manual limited the amount of accrued vacation time an employee was permitted to carry over from year to year, and that plaintiff had been properly compensated under the terms of the manual.

Nevertheless, a former employee may be entitled to recover for payment for unused accrued vacation time if he can establish that he reasonably relied on the express oral assurances of his employer that he would be paid for the time in issue (see Garrigan v Incorporated Vil. of [*2]Malverne, 12 AD3d 400, 401 [2004]; Gendalia v Gioffre, 191 AD2d 476 [1993]). At trial, plaintiff testified that prior to leaving defendant's employment, he had been told by a member of defendant's human resources department that he would be paid for his full vacation balance. As defendant failed to offer any refutation of plaintiff's testimony, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's finding in favor of plaintiff, and conclude that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

We note that we do not consider any materials which are dehors the record, nor do we consider any arguments raised for the first time on appeal (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.