Fetsch v Miller's Mint, Ltd.

[*1] Fetsch v Miller's Mint, Ltd. 2009 NY Slip Op 52377(U) [25 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on November 19, 2009 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 19, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MOLIA, J.P., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2008-1990 S C.

Joseph Fetsch, Appellant,

against

Miller's Mint, Ltd., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Howard M. Bergson, J.), entered July 18, 2008. 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 damages of $5,000 resulting from the loss of a $20 gold "Double Eagle" coin, minted in 1910 in Philadelphia. The coin was one of ten which plaintiff delivered to defendant coin dealer for shipment to the Professional Coin Grading System for grading. Plaintiff claims that said coin was missing when the coins were returned to him, and that another coin was substituted in its place. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded judgment in
favor of defendant dismissing the action, finding that plaintiff had failed to prove any negligence on the part of defendant.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the District Court properly rendered its judgment providing 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]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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 Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]; Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d 822, 823 [1982]). 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). Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact since it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses (see Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]; see also Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254; Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d at 823). The record supports the District Court's determination that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant was negligent or otherwise breached its bailment contract with plaintiff. To the extent plaintiff seeks to recover the missing coin from [*2]defendant, plaintiff likewise failed to demonstrate that defendant is in possession of said coin. In any event, the Small Claims Part of the District Court lacks the power to award such relief. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Molia, J.P., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 19, 2009