Plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2011, after trial, as limited his recovery of damages to the principal sum of $500. Defendant cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from that portion of the aforesaid judgment which determined the issue of liability against it.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2011, affirmed, without costs.

The trial court achieved "substantial justice" consistent with substantive law principles (see CCA 1804, 1807) in resolving the liability aspect of this small claims action in plaintiff's favor. The trial evidence, fairly interpreted (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), permits a finding that defendant failed to return several items of plaintiff's personalty upon terminating his employment. Notably, defendant produced no witnesses of its own, and its subpoenaed employees were unable to recall or produce records relating to the specific items shipped to plaintiff or, for that matter, the number of packed cartons comprising the shipment.

With respect to the damage issues raised on plaintiff's main appeal, we find that the court's damage award comported with the governing substantial justice review standard, and was neither inadequate nor unreasonable. There is no record support for any additional recovery, particularly since plaintiff's proof of damages consisted largely of internet shopping printouts, a number of which were written in Japanese without English translations. We note that defendant, on its cross appeal, does not seek a reduction of the damage award as excessive.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: November 09, 2012