Bonilla v GBL Jewelry, Inc.

[*1] Bonilla v GBL Jewelry, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 50788(U) Decided on April 27, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MOLIA, J.P., NICOLAI and LaCAVA, JJ
.

John Bonilla, Appellant,

against

GBL Jewelry, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered November 16, 2010. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who had purchased a pre-owned Rolex watch from defendant, brought this small claims action, alleging that defendant had represented the watch to be a "100% authentic Rolex" but that, when he sought to have the watch repaired, he learned that the watch dial had not been manufactured by Rolex. Plaintiff seeks to recover the cost of replacing the watch dial with a genuine Rolex dial.

At trial, in support of his damages claim, plaintiff offered into evidence only a single estimate of the cost of such services or repairs, which was insufficient to make out his prima facie case (see UDCA 1804; see also Haraden v All Is. Props. Corp., 26 Misc 3d 132[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50069[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]). Thus, it cannot be said that the District Court's determination to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action denied plaintiff substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Molia, J.P., Nicolai and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 27, 2012