Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County (John M. Kennedy, J.), entered July 7, 2004. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,500 unless, within 30 days, defendant returned the subject property to plaintiff, in which event the judgment in favor of plaintiff would be in the principal sum of $1,150.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff instituted this small claims action in the sum of $2,100 for damages incurred as a result of defendant's inadequate packing and shipping of an antique candlestand. The evidence adduced at trial established that on June 28, 2003, plaintiff,
an antique dealer, purchased the subject mahogany candlestand for $1,500. She subsequently sold the candlestand to a purchaser in Tuscaloosa, Alabama for $2,100. On August 12, 2003, she engaged defendant, at a cost of $120, to pack, ship and insure the candlestand. The stand arrived damaged and was returned. It appears that, at the time of trial, the stand was in defendant's possession. The plaintiff indicated at trial that she was only seeking the sum of $1,500. While it appears from the record that there was no dispute as to the estimate of the cost to repair the candlestand, the parties differed as to the value of the candlestand following any such repair. The court below found plaintiff's testimony, to the effect that the stand was not damaged prior to shipment, credible and awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,500 unless, within 30 days, defendant returned the subject property to plaintiff, in which event the judgment in favor of plaintiff would be in the principal sum of $1,150 (see generally UJCA 1805 [a]).

The determination of issues of credibility are for the trier of fact as it had the opportunity [*2]to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses (see McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]; Richards Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]) and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that it 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 Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (see UJCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). In view of the foregoing, we find that substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 2, 2007