Opinion
2008-2150 S C.
Decided November 5, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), entered September 15, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: MOLIA, J.P., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover for damage to his vehicle sustained when it was allegedly struck by a shopping cart in defendant's parking lot. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.
The decision of the 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).This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). A review of the record on appeal indicates that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant created the hazardous condition, had actual notice thereof ( see Zuk v Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 275) or caused the damage.
In view of the foregoing, substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807), and, thus, the judgment is affirmed.
Molia, J.P., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.