In our opinion, the plaintiff completely misconstrues the statute. Clearly, the statute, as well as our case law that has interpreted the statute, anticipates an appeal lodged by a tenant.10 Construing the statute as the plaintiff argues would achieve the ludicrous result of dismissal of his appeal because the defendant-tenant has not continued to pay rent during the pendency of the appeal. After all, it is the plaintiff-landlord and not the defendant-tenant who has appealed. Moreover, pursuant to § 34-18-53, the burden was on the plaintiff to provide satisfactory proof of the defendant’s nonpayment. See Russo v. Fleetwood, 713 A.2d 775, 776 (R.I.1998) (discussing the statute). The trial justice made a finding that the defendant had paid her rent and that she was not in arrears, and, as a result, he declined to enter judgment in the plaintiffs favor. Bearing in mind the great weight we give to the findings of fact of the trial justice, sitting without the benefit of a jury, we conclude that the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint was proper. See Bernier v. Lombardi, 793 A.2d 201, 203 (R.I.2002) (citing Technology Investors v. Town of Westerly, 689 A.2d 1060, 1062 (R.I.1997)). The plaintiff failed to provide adequate proof of the defendant’s nonpayment, and, when *102prompted by the trial justice for a record or ledger, he could only provide what the court termed a “self-serving” document. No other record of payments was provided. The trial justice found the defendant to be a credible witness, while simultaneously finding that the plaintiff lacked credibility, and we note, “the trial justice is in a better position than this Court to assess the testimony of the witnesses and determine credibility * * *." Carrozza v. Voccola, 90 A.3d 142, 169 (R.I.2014). Further, we see no error in the trial justice’s finding that the plaintiffs actions constituted a retaliatory eviction, given the deplorable conditions of the defendant’s apartment and her decision to complain to the Division of Code Enforcement shortly before this action was commencéd. In our opinion, the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence or misapply the law, and we therefore will not disturb the judgment that was entered.