Perez v Valenza Constr.

[*1] Perez v Valenza Constr. 2004 NY Slip Op 50367(U) Decided on April 27, 2004 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 27, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
NO. 2003-687 OR C

JOSEPH PEREZ, Appellant,

against

VALENZA CONSTRUCTION, Respondent. JOSEPH PEREZ, Appellant, CHUCK VALENZA, Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from a small claims judgment of the Justice Court, Town of Newburgh, Orange County (T. Tamsen, J.), entered on November 18, 2002, dismissing the consolidated actions.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs, consolidated actions reinstated
and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial.

In these consolidated small claims actions, plaintiff sought to recover the sum of [*2]
$3,000 each from Valenza Construction and Chuck Valenza for defendants' alleged
"breach of contract and fraudulent, substandard and incomplete home improvement
work." The parties offered conflicting testimony regarding the work which was promised
and the quality of the work done. The court apparently credited the testimony of
defendants and rejected that of plaintiff, and dismissed the case, noting in its decision
that plaintiff made his final payment notwithstanding problems which had been called to defendants' attention and which defendants attempted to address. In fact, the record
indicates that plaintiff made his final payment based upon the assurances of defendants' worker that any problems would be taken care of. Furthermore, in his testimony, defendant Valenza acknowledged that some minor work had to be corrected.

Since there was no basis in the record to support the court's determination
dismissing the actions, "substantial justice was not done between the parties according
to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UJCA 1807). The matter must, therefore,
be remanded to the court below for a new trial.

Decision Date: April 27, 2004