defendant had not suffered any damages from plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the notice
provision.
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 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's opportunity to observe and
evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it 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]). As the court's
findings and conclusions regarding the security deposit are supported by the record, we find that
the judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant, provided the parties with substantial justice
according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman,
269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126). Accordingly, the judgment insofar
as appealed from by defendant, is affirmed.
As to defendant's counterclaim, the record supports the District Court's finding that
defendant had established his claim for the unpaid water and electric bills, and for re-keying the
locks on the premises. As to defendant's claims for carpet cleaning and "bathroom/kitchen tile," it
is noted that, pursuant to paragraph 36 of the parties' lease, the sum of $100 would be deducted