2011-3018 S C CHASSIB WAHAB, ap, v. LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA LENSCRAFTERS, res — Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), entered August 2, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $625, alleging that defendant had breached its express warranty to repair or replace eyeglasses that plaintiff had purchased from defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action. Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

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 trial 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 evaluate their credibility (see Vizarri v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). Although plaintiff testified that, when he had purchased the glasses, he had been told that if he needed to repair them he could come back to defendant for as long as he owned them, the District Court credited defendant's employee's testimony that, at the time of plaintiff's purchase, defendant's policy was that it would fix broken, damaged, or scratched glasses for half price so long as the customer brought the glasses in to defendant's store within one year from the date of purchase. Since it is uncontested that plaintiff did not bring his glasses in to defendant's store for repair within one year from the date of purchase, we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination that the warranty had expired by the time plaintiff brought the glasses to defendant for repair.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.