Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered December 14, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807) in this small claims action arising from a theft of plaintiff's property, a Rolex watch and some cash, from a locker located in defendant's premises. Plaintiff failed to raise any objection below concerning the conduct of the trial or the propriety of defendant's manager's appearance on defendant's behalf, and there is no indication from the record that he was prevented
from raising such objections by the conduct of the court. We note that a corporation may appear in defense of a small claims action by an authorized officer, director or employee (UDCA 1809 [2]). Although the court conducted the questioning of the parties, plaintiff was asked on several occasions whether he had anything to add, and was in fact permitted to submit several items into evidence, including photographs of the locker following the break-in, a police report, and estimates of the value of the stolen property. Procedure in the small claims forum is informal in nature, and all that is required is that proceedings be conducted "in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law" (UDCA 1804).

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.