Colin V. Patterson, appellant pro se. China Construction USA, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Orlando Marrazzo, Jr., J.), entered October 9, 2015. 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 principal sum of $4,570.18 for damage sustained to his automobile. He alleged that his vehicle had hit something when he had been driving, after dark, on the Staten Island Expressway, through a construction area allegedly controlled by defendant. After a nonjury trial, at which no photographs of the construction site were provided, and neither plaintiff nor his witnesses were able to identify what plaintiff's automobile had hit, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Section 619-3.02 of the Department of Transportation Manual, entitled Basic Work Zone Traffic Control, provides as follows:

"the Contractor shall control traffic so that a person who has no knowledge of conditions may safely and with a minimum of discomfort and inconvenience ride, drive, or walk, day or night, over all or any portion of the highway and/or structure under construction where traffic is to be maintained. The Contractor shall cease operations and restore the traveled way to safe operating condition during any specific periods listed in the contract documents, at such times as traffic renders conditions unsafe to continue work, and during periods of darkness (before sunrise or after sunset), fog, snow or rain, high winds, or other inclement weather that renders conditions unsafe to continue work, for either the traveling public or the workers. The Engineer will determine when traffic or weather conditions render work operations unsafe."

Here, plaintiff failed to identify with any specificity the defect that allegedly caused the damage to his vehicle and, in any event, failed to attribute any such defect to defendant's conduct. Consequently, the dismissal of the action rendered substantial justice according to the rules and principle of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807; Siegel v City of New York, 86 AD3d 452 [2011]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.