Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Chester, Orange County (Janet M. Haislip, J.), entered July 27, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the $520 balance she paid to defendants as March 2007 rent for the premises in question, a single-family unit. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court dismissed the action.

The decision of the 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 e.g. Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see e.g. Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as the court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses (see e.g. Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]).

The Justice Court found that plaintiff had not established her claim that she was unable to move into the leased premises because the water was not drinkable, and further found that defendants had lost one and a half months' rent as a result of plaintiff's actions and had incurred advertising fees. As the record supports these conclusions, which were based in part on the credibility of the witnesses, we find no basis to disturb them. Moreover, contrary to plaintiff's contention on appeal, in the circumstances presented, the absence of a certificate of occupancy, if one was in fact required for the premises in question, did not afford plaintiff a ground to recover [*2]her deposit (see e.g. Corbin v Briley, 192 Misc 2d 503 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2002]; Corsini v Gottschalk, NYLJ, Dec. 20, 1999 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; Soalt v Pulisic, NYLJ, Dec. 5, 1991 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Therefore, we find that the trial court's judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126), and we affirm the judgment.

Rudolph, P.J., Scheinkman and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 14, 2009