Pagett v Redendo

Annotate this Case
[*1] Pagett v Redendo 2012 NY Slip Op 51055(U) Decided on June 11, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 11, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2010-1075 P C.

David Pagett, Appellant,

against

Frank Redendo, Respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Kent, Putnam County (Joseph Esposito Sr., J.), entered December 17, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of only $500.


ORDERED that the judgment is modified by increasing the principal sum awarded to plaintiff from $500 to $1,585; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for damage to the bathroom of his condominium unit caused by water leaking from the bathroom of defendant's condominium unit. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $500, based on an estimate submitted by defendant.

Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice between the parties (UJCA 1807) requires that the award be increased by $1,085. Pursuant to UJCA 1804, plaintiff submitted itemized estimates from contractors to establish the amount of damage sustained to his bathroom (see UJCA 1804). Defendant submitted an estimate from a single contractor who had never seen the damage to plaintiff's bathroom, which estimate was insufficient to rebut plaintiff's proof. Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is modified by increasing the amount awarded to plaintiff by $1,085 to the principal sum of $1,585, the lowest amount of the [*2]three estimates submitted by plaintiff.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 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.