Opinion
2007-429 OR C.
Decided July 1, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Newburgh, Orange County (Peter M. Kulkin, J.), entered December 6, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
In this commercial claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover lost profits and the refund of a $200 deposit paid to defendant Hudson River Adventures for a group tour on the Hudson River. After a nonjury trial, the court below awarded judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the action.
The issue presented on appeal is one of credibility. The resolution of issues of credibility is for the trier of fact as it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses ( see McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824; Richard's Home Ctr. Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544), and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that said determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, supra). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Commercial Claims Part of the City Court given the limited standard of review (UCCA 1804-A, 1807-A; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). A review of the record on appeal indicates there was sufficient support in the record for the trial court's determination. Since "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807-A), the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
With regard to plaintiff's claim that the court was biased, the record indicates that the court immediately disclosed to the parties that he had met one of the defendants 10 years ago at a public function. However, the judge stated that he could be fair and impartial. Upon our review of the record, we find that the court maintained a balanced and impartial demeanor during trial and considered relevant and competent evidence before rendering a verdict.
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.