arguing, among other things, that tenant was not entitled to an abatement for the time period after
April 25, 2010, when the leaks had ceased.
[*2]
In "ascertaining damages [for a breach of the warranty of
habitability], the finder of fact must weigh the severity of the violation and duration of conditions
giving rise to the breach as well as the effectiveness of steps taken by the landlord to abate those
conditions" (Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329 [1979]). Moreover, 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]). The determination of a trier of fact as
to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the 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]).
The Civil Court clearly credited tenant's testimony over landlord's testimony, and weighed
the severity of the leaks as well as the effectiveness of landlord's superficial repairs to resolve the
long term leaks. While the evidence indicated that the leaks ceased after April 25, 2010, there
was substantial damage to the apartment, resulting from the leaks, which damage persisted after
April 25, 2010. Inasmuch as the court's conclusions could be reached under a fair interpretation
of the evidence, its determination will not be disturbed on appeal. In addition, we note that
landlord failed to preserve for review its contention, in effect, that the Civil Court demonstrated