Rossi v Puppy Boutique

[*1] Rossi v Puppy Boutique 2008 NY Slip Op 51449(U) [20 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on July 8, 2008 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 8, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
2007-848 K C.

Thomas Rossi, Respondent,

against

Puppy Boutique, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alice Fisher Rubin, J.), entered December 21, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action, alleging that a puppy he purchased from defendant was unfit for sale. The dog died approximately two weeks after plaintiff purchased it. The proof at trial established that plaintiff incurred veterinarian expenses totaling $3,200 and that the dog was unfit for sale.

The standard of review on an appeal from a small claims judgment is whether substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807). A small claims judgment may not be reversed absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the court's conclusions, or that the court's determination is otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620 [1986]). Plaintiff was entitled to recover damages on a theory that defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability (UCC 2-314; see Budd v Quinlan, 19 Misc 3d 66 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; Appell v Rodriguez, 14 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50051[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]; Saxton v Pets Warehouse, 180 Misc 2d 377 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1999]). Thus, plaintiff was entitled to the veterinarian expenses he reasonably incurred (UCC 2-714, 2-715). Accordingly, substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807).

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: July 8, 2008