Socha v Skalski

[*1] Socha v Skalski 2010 NY Slip Op 50870(U) [27 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on May 17, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 17, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570659/09.

Piotr Socha, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Maria Skalski, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2008, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding him damages in the principal sum of $2,795.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2008, reversed, without costs, and new trial ordered.

This small claims action seeks recovery of monies allegedly due plaintiff for painting and remodeling work performed by him at defendant's residential apartment. The slender trial record, consisting of what the trial court accurately described as "limited" evidence, does not permit intelligent appellate review of the issues presented, most notably those relating to the nature and extent of the work undertaken by plaintiff, whether such work qualifies as a home improvement (see Raywood Assoc. v Seibel, 172 AD2d 154 [1991]; Power Cooling, Inc. v Wassong, 5 Misc 3d 22 [2004]), and, if so, whether plaintiff obtained the requisite home improvement contractor's license (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-387[a]). We note that the licensing issue was sufficiently, albeit inartfully, raised by the pro se defendant's record statement questioning whether plaintiff had a permit to do "construction work" (cf. Feeward Constr. Co. v Capolino, 181 AD2d 632 [1992], lv dismissed 80 NY2d 969 [1992]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 17, 2010