Haff v F&J Transmissions, Inc.

[*1] Haff v F&J Transmissions, Inc. 2004 NY Slip Op 51070(U) Decided on September 22, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 22, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
-x

ROBERT HAFF, Respondent, NO. 2003-1427 S C DECIDED

against

F&J TRANSMISSIONS, INC., and FRANK OLIVER, Appellants. -x

Appeal by defendants from a small claims judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County (P. Hensley, J.), entered May 30, 2003, in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $2,896.37.

Judgment unanimously modified by reducing the award to plaintiff to the sum of $804.40; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

On September 16, 2002, plaintiff had defendants tow his disabled vehicle to defendants' repair shop. After plaintiff rejected defendants' estimate as to the cost to repair his car, defendants initially refused to release the car despite plaintiff's demand,
claiming that plaintiff had agreed to pay for the estimate. Ultimately, defendants relented and plaintiff had it towed to another repair shop which repaired the car's transmission as well as damage alleged to have been intentionally caused to plaintiff's car by defendants.

Inasmuch as plaintiff did not establish the condition of the vehicle immediately prior and subsequent to defendants' possession thereof, he failed to establish that the alleged intentional damage occurred while the car was in defendants' possession. Plaintiff's reliance upon the statements made by the mechanic at the second repair shop were insufficient to establish that defendants damaged the vehicle because it is well settled that "a decision which rests wholly on [*2]hearsay evidence cannot stand in any court, even the Small Claims Part . . ., where the court is not bound by rules of evidence" (Levins v Bucholtz, 2 AD2d 351, 351-352 [1956]; see Rubin v Medynski, 195 Misc 2d 869, 871 [2003] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Although plaintiff presented a paid receipt, said receipt merely established the necessity and reasonable value of the repairs (see UDCA 1804), not who was responsible for the damage. Thus, plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything for the damage which he claimed the defendants intentionally inflicted to his car.

However, plaintiff was properly awarded damages for the cost of renting a car while his vehicle was wrongfully withheld by defendants. Although plaintiff submits a rental bill for the vehicle, we note that it included charges for a period extending beyond the time that defendants released plaintiff's vehicle to him. Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to an award of $804.40 representing charges solely attributable to the days during which defendants wrongfully retained plaintiff's vehicle.
Decision Date: September 22, 2004