Appeals from judgments of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Leslie J. Purificacion, J.), entered May 4, 2007. The judgments, after a joint nonjury trial of two actions, dismissed the actions.

On the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition.Judgments affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced two small claims actions against Consolidated Edison to recover charges he had paid it for the relocation of a gas pipe and an electrical line. Following a joint trial of the actions, the court below dismissed the actions. In our opinion, the court below provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The decision of the 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 Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Under Consolidated Edison's tariff, where special services are performed as an accommodation to the customer, the customer is responsible for the cost of the services. In the instant cases, the record amply supports the trial court's conclusion that the relocation of both the gas pipe and the electrical line were special services performed by defendant as an accommodation to plaintiff. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the judgments.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 29, 2008