Bowie v St. Cabrini Home, Inc.

[*1] Bowie v St. Cabrini Home, Inc. 2009 NY Slip Op 52641(U) [26 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on December 29, 2009 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 29, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570525/08.

Edward Bowie, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

St. Cabrini Home, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an amended judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about March 31, 2009, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding him damages in the principal sum of $5,000.

Per Curiam.

Amended judgment (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about March 31, 2009, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for a new trial before another Judge.
The action seeks to recover overtime and other wages allegedly earned by plaintiff during various time periods dating back to November 2001, while he worked in a group home owned and operated by defendant, a nonprofit organization. After trial, Civil Court awarded plaintiff judgment in the amount of $5,000, without setting forth its reasoning. We previously held defendant's appeal in abeyance pending the trial court's issuance of a decision conforming with the specificity requirements of CPLR 4213(b) (see Bowie v St. Cabrini Homes, Inc., 22 Misc 3d 135[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50262[U] [2009]).

Regrettably, the trial court's amended decision is only slightly more elucidating than its initial decision already found deficient. The court, pointing generally to its favorable assessment of plaintiff's credibility, conclusorily determined that plaintiff had "proven liability of 100% against the defendant." With respect to damages, the court stated, in elliptical fashion, that the ad damnum set forth in plaintiff's endorsed complaint was "far in excess of the credible amounts set forth in [his] documentary evidence," and proceeded to award plaintiff an unitemized, aggregate recovery of $5,000 so as to "prevent an unfair windfall for plaintiff." The court's amended decision neither references plaintiff's trial stipulation reducing his ad damnum to $16,107 nor essays to explain its own method of calculation. In this posture, and given the uncertainty in the record as to whether this defendant is exempt from the overtime wage requirements promulgated under Labor Law § 652 (see particularly § 652[3][b]), we are constrained to order a new trial.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 29, 2009