Opinion
December 6, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Hopkins, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that "[a] decision [rendered by a court after a nonjury trial should] not be disturbed on appeal unless it is [clear] that [its] conclusions could not [have been] reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence" (Universal Leasing Servs. v Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 A.D.2d 829, 830; Alleva v Alleva Dairy, 129 A.D.2d 663). This is especially true when findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to credibility of witnesses (see, Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 A.D.2d 822, 823).
In the present case, the trial court evaluated all of the evidence and rendered an extensive decision holding that the defendant was under a duty to pay the plaintiff for the price of building materials delivered to the defendant's home. However, the plaintiff failed to establish that it had delivered building materials to the defendant's home for which it had not been paid. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was in breach of contract. We find that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusions, and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment entered thereon. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.