Mandi Qukay Design & Planning, Inc. v Anghel

Annotate this Case
[*1] Mandi Qukay Design & Planning, Inc. v Anghel 2004 NY Slip Op 51102(U) Decided on September 29, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 29, 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

MANDI QUKAY DESIGN & PLANNING, INC., Respondent,

against

MARIA-LUCIA ANGHEL, M.D., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a commercial claims judgment of the District Court, Nassau County (J. Spinola, J.), entered June 25, 2003, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,375.


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

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover certain amounts due for interior design work performed for defendant. Defendant was apparently not satisfied with some of plaintiff's work, and alleged that she had to pay others to have the work properly done. Although the court, in awarding judgment to plaintiff, stated that defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate various portions of her counterclaim, it stated that it reduced plaintiff's award by those portions of defendant's counterclaim which were substantiated. There is no indication, however, that defendant ever interposed a counterclaim in this case, and it is unclear how the court below determined the amount that defendant was entitled to as an offset to plaintiff's award. Accordingly, the matter must be remanded to the court below for a new trial, in order that substantial justice be done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1807-A).
Decision Date: September 29, 2004

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.