Feliciano v Delko Transmissions

[*1] Feliciano v Delko Transmissions 2004 NY Slip Op 51236(U) Decided on October 21, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 21, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: ARONIN, J.P., PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
2003-1806 K C

CARLOS M. FELICIANO, Respondent,

against

DELKO TRANSMISSIONS, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a small claims judgment of the Civil Court, Kings County (P. Sweeney, J.), entered August 11, 2003, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,150.

Judgment unanimously modified by reducing the amount of the award to plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,450; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff instituted the instant small claims action to recover for defendant's failure to properly repair his transmission. At trial, plaintiff testified that defendant overhauled his transmission in August of 2002 at a cost of $1,400. Since the transmission continued to give him problems, he brought the car back to defendant numerous times. In April of 2003, apparently beyond the expiration of the six-month warranty period, he was charged an additional $703 for repairing the transmission. A few weeks later, he spent $50 to have his car towed. Defendant's owner acknowledged having done work on the car and having been paid by plaintiff. He disputed, however, the nature of the $703 repair which, he stated, was unrelated to the initial overhaul of the transmission, a point which was uncontroverted by plaintiff. A mechanic who testified on plaintiff's behalf had looked at the transmission, and was of the opinion that the work done in August of 2002 was not done properly. He estimated that it would cost approximately $1,400 to overhaul the transmission.

Our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done "according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807). Given this limited standard of review, the deference on appeal normally accorded a trial court's credibility determinations "applies with greater force" in the context of a small claims action (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [*2][2000]). Accordingly, a small claims judgment may not be overturned unless "the deviation from substantive law. . . [is] readily apparent and the court's determination clearly erroneous" (Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620, 621 [1986]). After hearing the testimony before it, the trial court apparently found the plaintiff's version of the facts to be more credible than defendant's version,
and there is sufficient evidence in the record to support that determination. Similarly, the trial court was entitled to credit the testimony of plaintiff's witness, particularly with respect to the cost of overhauling the transmission.

However, the court improperly awarded plaintiff damages for the amounts spent on the defective repairs, rather than for the estimated cost to overhaul the transmission. Accordingly, the judgment should be modified by reducing the amount of the award to plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,450.
Decision Date: October 21, 2004