Yoli v Runge Moving & Stor.

[*1] Yoli v Runge Moving & Stor. 2006 NY Slip Op 50738(U) [11 Misc 3d 142(A)] Decided on April 14, 2006 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 14, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and LIPPMAN, JJ
2005-689 W C.

Michael Yoli, Respondent,

against

Runge Moving and Storage, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Robert C. Cerrato, J.), entered March 5, 2004. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $300.

Judgment reversed without costs and action dismissed.

Plaintiff instituted this small claims action for damages as a result of defendant's failure to move his furniture and personal effects from his apartment in the Bronx to a home in Poquague, New York within one day. The testimony at trial established that
the move was delayed due to plaintiff's failure to pack his own items as had been previously agreed. As a result, even with the assistance of two extra men, who arrived
at about 10 or 11 A.M., to supplement the original 3-man crew, which had arrived at
plaintiff's Bronx apartment at 9:00 A.M., defendant was unable to complete loading the contents of the apartment into the truck until approximately 5:00 P.M. At that point, defendant's foreman indicated that it would not be prudent for the driver and crew to travel approximately 3 ½ to 4 hours to plaintiff's new premises, unpack the truck and then
drive an additional 3 ½ to 4 hours back to the warehouse. Plaintiff's goods
were stored on the truck at defendant's warehouse without charge and delivered to his home at approximately 10:00 A.M. the following morning. In view of the foregoing and since there was no evidence that defendant guaranteed that the move would be completed within one day, plaintiff failed to establish a breach of contract on
defendant's part. Consequently, in awarding judgment in favor of plaintiff, substantial justice [*2]was not done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1807) and the action is dismissed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Lippman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 14, 2006