Puchkova v Staten Is. Nissan

[*1] Puchkova v Staten Is. Nissan 2012 NY Slip Op 50632(U) Decided on April 4, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 4, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-988 RI C.

Larisa Puchkova, Appellant,

against

Staten Island Nissan Doing Business as SG HYLAN MOTORS, INC., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Philip S. Straniere, J.), entered June 3, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging that she had overpaid defendant on her purchase of defendant's vehicle since defendant had failed to properly credit her deposit and the final written invoice did not reflect the proper price of the vehicle as agreed upon by the parties. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

The parties initially signed a contract setting forth the base price of the vehicle as $27,000. The total price of the vehicle was listed as $29,192.99, which sum included various fees and taxes, and indicated that plaintiff had made a $1,000 deposit thereon. The record contains a subsequent invoice setting forth the base price as $33,033.44 and indicating that the total price of the car was $36,048.99, which included various fees and finance charges and reflected a total deposit by plaintiff of $4,161.50.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment failed to render substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]). While at trial the parties agreed that, subsequent to the initial contract, plaintiff had decided to purchase additional options for the vehicle, it is unclear from the record how the Civil Court determined that the ultimate price defendant charged plaintiff for the vehicle was in accordance with the parties' agreement, as the cost of the additional options, as indicated by defendant at trial, did not appear to equal the more than $6,000 increase in the base price of the car as reflected in the invoice. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial, at which the court shall make findings which shall include, but not be limited to, the specific amount plaintiff was charged for each of the individual options, including the window etching policy, the extended warranty policy, the roadside assistance and the upgraded passive alarm system with auto start, as well as taxes, finance charges and fees. The Civil Court shall also determine the exact amount of the deposit that plaintiff paid. [*2]

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 04, 2012