Juriczynski v Rosenbloom

[*1] Juriczynski v Rosenbloom 2012 NY Slip Op 51532(U) Decided on August 14, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 14, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570982/11.

Eugenia A. Juriczynski Plaintiff-Appellant, - -

against

Lee Rosenbloom and Plaza Collectibles, Ltd., Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff, as limited by her brief, appeals from that portion of a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about September 21, 2011, after trial, as limited her recovery of damages to the principal sum of $400.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about September 21, 2011, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The amount of the damage award ($400) issued in plaintiff's favor upon the trial of this small claims action achieved "substantial justice" (CCA 1804, 1807) and was neither inadequate nor unreasonable. Even assuming, arguendo, that the $400 limitation on liability contained in the receipt issued by defendant is unenforceable, plaintiff failed to present any competent proof of damages to warrant a recovery in excess of that amount. Plaintiff offered but a ballpark guesstimate of the value of the jewelry sued for — largely "home made" items featuring semiprecious stones — an uncertain appraisal which, despite plaintiff's acknowledged difficulty in remembering the costs of the materials used in the design and assembly of the jewelry, was loosely based on that criterion alone ("I paid like $600" for the square topaz; "[t]he earrings were $350 or something"). Given the speculative nature of plaintiff's proof of damages, we find no basis to award her any additional recovery. Inasmuch as defendant did not file a cross appeal, we have no occasion to consider whether the damage award has record support or is excessive.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: August 14, 2012