Sirigo v Coca Cola Bottling of N.Y.

[*1] Sirigo v Coca Cola Bottling of N.Y. 2004 NY Slip Op 50678(U) Decided on June 23, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 23, 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. 2003-1528 S C

DENISE SIRIGO, Appellant,

against

COCA COLA BOTTLING OF NEW YORK, INC., Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from a small claims judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County (P. Hensley, J.), entered October 31, 2002, which dismissed her claim.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

On July 11, 2002, plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $2,614.76 which she claimed was the balance defendant owed her for the cost to repair her vehicle. On February 7, 1996, one of defendant's trucks hit plaintiff's parked vehicle. Thereafter, plaintiff obtained a repair estimate for the sum of $5,397.57 and sent same along with a letter to defendant requesting reimbursement. Plaintiff concedes that she received the sum of $2,782.91 from defendant. On February 5, 1997, one of defendant's representatives sent plaintiff a letter in which she stated that the damage done to plaintiff's vehicle was defendant's fault, defendant was responsible for paying for her damage and that she was instructing the defendant's corporate offices to pay the balance of plaintiff's claim in the sum of $2,614.76. Said letter further provided that if plaintiff did not receive said check within 30 days, plaintiff should contact her. Plaintiff argues that the three year statute of limitations for actions to recover damages for injury to property (CPLR 214 [4]) is not applicable in the case at hand inasmuch as she was suing defendant for breach of contract based on the aforementioned letter dated February 5, 1997 and, as such, the applicable statute of limitations was six years (CPLR 213 [2]). We are of the [*2]opinion that the letter dated February 5, 1997 was not an enforceable contract Accordingly, the lower court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807).
Decision Date: June 23, 2004