DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter the JHO) properly granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction asserted by the appellant Dominick Vitucci. The proof elicited at the hearing to determine the validity of service of process upon the appellant established that the summons was delivered to a person of suitable age and discretion at the appellant's actual place of business on February 19, 2002 (see CPLR 308). Although the appellant testified that the individual served was not one of suitable discretion, his testimony was conclusory and was not credited by the court. Issues of credibility are generally for the hearing court and should not be disturbed if supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Koslosky v. Koslosky, 267 A.D.2d 357; McGuirk v. Mugs Pub, 250 A.D.2d 824, 825). The JHO's factual determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and was supported by the credible testimony of the process server adduced at the hearing (cf. Torres v. Corpus, 131 A.D.2d 463, 464-465; Carlino v. Cook, 126 A.D.2d 597, 598).
The appellant's remaining contentions either are academic in light of the foregoing or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.