Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered October 6, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff alleges that over $5,000 was taken from her purse while she was being treated at defendant St. Joseph Hospital. Plaintiff seeks to recover the jurisdictional limit of $5,000 (UDCA 1801). At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that she and her husband arrived at the hospital on the night of October 7, 2010, for a bruise to her right arm. Prior to leaving for the hospital, plaintiff had placed almost $6,000 in an envelope and put the envelope in her purse. When she arrived at the hospital, she was told that she could not take her purse with her into the emergency room (ER), so she left it at the receptionist's desk. She did not get a receipt for her purse. The next afternoon she was transferred by ambulance to South Oaks Hospital, from which she was discharged on October 20, 2010. Then, for the first time since going to St. Joseph Hospital, she looked in her purse and found no money inside. She testified that a medical technician had taken the purse with him when she had gotten out of the ambulance at South Oaks Hospital. Her husband testified that he had seen the money in his wife's purse [*2]when he had driven her to St. Joseph Hospital. When asked why she had not given the money to her husband while she was being evaluated at St. Joseph Hospital, plaintiff could offer no explanation. Defendant called as a witness an ER technician, who testified that a person visiting the ER maintains possession of his or her belongings unless unable to do so. Following trial, the District Court dismissed the action.

The decision of a trial court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that its 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 even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to evaluate their credibility (see Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510 [1991]).

Upon a review of the record, we find no reason to disturb the judgment, as the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 30, 2013