Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of North Salem, Westchester County (Ralph R. Mackin, J.), entered August 19, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion by defendants Double R Associates, LP and Gideon Raviv to vacate a default judgment.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff homeowners association brought the instant breach of contract action on the ground that defendants failed to pay their annual assessment. Although defendants had appeared in a prior, similar action, they did not answer the instant complaint. Accordingly, the court below granted plaintiff a default judgment in the principal sum of $2,000. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant Gideon Raviv moved on his own behalf and on behalf of defendant Double R Associates, LP to vacate the default judgment, alleging that they were never served with the summons and complaint. In opposition, plaintiff relied on the affidavit of service of its process server and the affirmation of its counsel, who had witnessed service upon Gideon [*2]Raviv. After a hearing on defendants' motion, the court ruled, inter alia, that there was good service on the limited partnership and on Gideon Raviv and denied the motion as to said defendants. The instant appeal ensued.

The court below could properly credit the testimony of plaintiff's attorney, who witnessed the service by the process server upon Gideon Raviv individually and on behalf of Double R Associates, LP, which testimony corroborated the process server's statements contained in the affidavit of service. The resolution of issues of credibility was for the trier of fact, who had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses (see McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]). Additionally, the court properly considered, inter alia, defendant's certificate of limited partnership, with which the court determined that there was good service upon Double R Associates, LP, through Gideon Raviv, the president of its general partner (see CPLR 311 [a] [1]).

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1990]). Since we find that the record supports the determination of the court below, we do not disturb its findings.

Rudolph, P.J., Emerson and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 10, 2007