Opinion
2008-1423 S C.
Decided June 29, 2009.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered May 5, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $1,245 for swimming pool cleaning and repair services he rendered to defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the District Court properly rendered its judgment providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125).
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 Richard's Home Ctr. Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254; Matter of Poggemeyer, 89 AD2d 822, 823). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact since it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses ( see Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511; see also Richard's Home Ctr. Lbr., 199 AD2d at 254; Matter of Poggemeyer, 89 AD2d at 823). Since the record supports the District Court's determination, the judgment is affirmed.
The decision and order of this court entered herein on June 2, 2009 are hereby recalled and vacated ( see motion decided simultaneously herewith).
Tanenbaum, J.P., and Molia J., concur.
Scheinkman, J., taking no part.