Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Richard C. Finning, J.), entered July 3, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,230.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who had been hired as an independent contractor performing marketing services for defendant, commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $1,230, allegedly due for work he had performed during the last two months he had worked for defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that his rate of pay was $20 per hour and that, during the period in question, he had worked for defendant for 61.5 hours. Defendant's witness testified that plaintiff had not been paid because, during that period, plaintiff had been using defendant's office for work for his own company and not for defendant. Following the trial, the Justice Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,230.

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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 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).

Based on the evidence presented, the Justice Court apparently found plaintiff's testimony to be more credible than that of the defense witness. 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 UJCA 1804, 1807).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the Justice Court was biased in favor of plaintiff. While the court asked questions of both witnesses, this was merely done in an attempt to elicit the relevant facts. In any event, defendant failed to raise any objection during the trial concerning the court's conduct, and there is no indication from the record that it was prevented from doing so. Although defendant also claims that the court did not [*2]admit into evidence various documents it had brought to court, the record indicates that, towards the end of the trial, the defense witness was given an opportunity to present any other documents it had or make any more statements, and he declined to do so.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

We note that the record indicates that the Justice Court directed the Clerk of the Small Claims Part of the Justice Court to amend all the proceedings and papers in this matter to reflect defendant's true name (see CPLR 5019 [a]; see also UJCA 1814), and the caption of the appeal has been so amended.

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