Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court, New York County, entered on or about November 14, 2002 after trial (Cynthia A. Kern, J.) in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

PER CURIAM:

Order entered on or about November 14, 2002 (Cynthia A. Kern, J.) affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that the trial court applied the appropriate rules and principles of substantive law and accomplished "substantial law and accomplished "substantial justice" in dismissing this small claims action (CCA 1804, 1807; see, Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898). The court's express finding that the defendant bank published its redemption notice in accordance with the publication requirements of the underlying bond resolution is a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Gampel v Burlington Indus., 43 Misc 2d 846), and is not disturbed. "The requirements of the [bond resolution] . . . are not so stringent that actual notice must be established by resort to mathematical probabilities. If the type of publication employed is [*3]reasonably calculated to give notice to the persons affected, it is adequate since the law does not guarantee the efficacy of its processes to carry home notice to every interested mind." (Barrett v Cuskelly, 52 Misc 2d 250, 252, affd 28 NY2d 532).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.