Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District

(C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated April 27, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant had caused her to suffer personal injuries and had damaged her vehicle. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000] Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

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 Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). Here, even assuming that plaintiff established defendant's liability, plaintiff failed to establish her damages through competent evidence. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff did not demonstrate that the car was a total loss. Plaintiff likewise failed to establish the cost to repair the vehicle, through expert testimony, a paid invoice, or two itemized estimates (see UDCA 1804). We note that, even had plaintiff demonstrated that the vehicle was a total loss, she failed to establish the value of the car prior to the accident based on its condition at the time (see Babbitt v Maraia, 157 AD2d 691 [1990]). Thus, as the record supports the District Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.