Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered March 2, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought the instant small claims action to recover damages for the loss of an original videotape which she had produced and sent to defendant for its review. After the videotape had been viewed, plaintiff telephoned Linda Hackett, defendant's Director of Community Relations, to request that the videotape be returned to her.
Ms. Hackett testified that she mailed the videotape back to plaintiff by regular mail.
Ms. Holder states that she never received it, and that Ms. Hackett should have chosen a method of mailing which included tracking information.

The standard of review on an appeal of a small claims judgment is whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807). The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that its conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses. This principle "applies with greater force" to judgments rendered in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, [*2]126 [2000]; see also Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707 [1997]). In the instant case, the court was entitled to credit Ms. Hackett's testimony to the effect that she mailed the tape back to plaintiff by regular mail at the return address which was on the envelope in which the tape was originally sent. Plaintiff acknowledged that she did not make a request that the tape be mailed other than by regular mail, and there was no such agreement between the parties. In the absence of any duty or obligation on the part of defendant to mail the tape in any [*3]
manner other than by regular mail, the method used by plaintiff in initially sending the videotape to Ms. Hackett, there was no basis to hold defendant responsible for the loss. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the court below did not err in dismissing the action.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 2006