Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County (Howard Gerber, J.), entered March 1, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $2,565.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff alleges that his home was damaged by blasting activity engaged in by defendant on two separate occasions. It is undisputed that defendant was engaged in blasting activity at the time the damage allegedly occurred. A party engaged in blasting activities is strictly liable for any injury to
neighboring property caused by the blasting (Spano v Perini Corp., 25 NY2d 11, 15 [1969]). A party seeking to recover for damage to his property from a defendant's blasting activities must prove causation (see 3 E. 52nd St. Corp. v Uris Fifth Ave. Corp., 38 AD2d 917 [1972]).

Plaintiff testified at trial that, while he was experiencing the blasting, he simultaneously witnessed some of the damage. At the same time, he heard a crackling noise in other parts of his house where he later discovered damage. The inference that the damage was caused by the blasting may be properly drawn under these circumstances (cf. Spano, 25 NY2d at 18).

While defendant produced an expert witness who testified that the blasting could not have caused the damage alleged, where an eyewitness and an expert witness disagree with each other in a nonjury trial, factual questions must be resolved by the court (cf. Lee v Flight Safety, Inc., 63 AD2d 994 [1978]). The lower court found plaintiff's testimony more credible, 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 (e.g. Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). 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 [*2](see UJCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

We find that substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1807).
Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 2, 2008