Nassau Tent v Dresner
Annotate this CaseDecided on April 2, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MOLIA, J.P., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2010-2380 N C.
Nassau Tent, Appellant,
against
Erica Dresner, Respondent.
Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered February 4, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $750.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $4,929.47; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $4,929.47 for defendant's failure, after renting a party tent and a dance floor from plaintiff, to pay the rental fees. Defendant did not contest the amount unpaid under the contract but maintained that she was entitled to a setoff because the tent and dance floor had destroyed the sod on her property, which she then had to replace. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found that defendant was entitled to a setoff and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $750.
Upon a review of the record, including the contract's disclaimer of liability clause, we find that defendant failed to demonstrate her entitlement to a setoff. Furthermore, defendant did not proffer sufficient evidence to establish that the tent and dance floor had destroyed any, let alone all, of the sod on her property. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that substantial justice was not done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law [*2](UDCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the sum of $4,929.47, the full amount due plaintiff under the contract.
Molia, J.P., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 02, 2012
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.