Adinolfi v Majestic Auto Inc.

[*1] Adinolfi v Majestic Auto Inc. 2006 NY Slip Op 52031(U) [13 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on October 5, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 5, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and LIPPMAN, JJ
2005-1687 D C.

Vincent G. Adinolfi, Respondent,

against

Majestic Auto Inc., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County (Richard D. Griffiths, J.), entered June 13, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,332.79.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff instituted this small claims action for breach of a used car warranty based on defendant's refusal to replace the transmission in a vehicle plaintiff purchased from defendant. Defendant provided plaintiff with a 4 month/4,000 mile used car warranty which obligated defendant to reimburse plaintiff for 100% of the reasonable cost of covered repairs. It is undisputed that the transmission failed during the warranty period. Defendant refused to absorb the total cost of the repair as required by the warranty. As a result, plaintiff engaged another repair shop to install a rebuilt transmission at a cost of $2,332.79. An itemized bill, receipted and marked paid, was admitted into evidence as prima facie proof of the reasonable value and necessity of the repair (UJCA 1804). In view of the foregoing, and since defendant failed to offer competent credible evidence rebutting plaintiff's proof, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1807).
Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Lippman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 5, 2006