Blovin v Countywide Towing Enforcement

[*1] Blovin v Countywide Towing Enforcement 2012 NY Slip Op 52268(U) Decided on December 7, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 7, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ
2011-2053 N C.

Gregory Blovin, Respondent,

against

Countywide Towing Enforcement, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Angelo A. Delligatti, J.), entered April 27, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,000.

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

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $1,960.78 for damage to his car allegedly sustained when it was towed by defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff submitted invoices to show, among other things, that he had paid $1,317.97 to get his vehicle repaired and $385.91 for a rental car. After trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,000. On appeal, defendant argues, in effect, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Section 1804 of the Uniform District Court Act provides that "[a]n itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates for services or repairs, are admissible in evidence and are prima facie evidence of the reasonable value and necessity of such services and repairs." Upon a review of the record, we find that the customer's copy of the invoice submitted by plaintiff is not a sufficiently "itemized bill or invoice" as required by [*2]UDCA 1804, as substantial portions thereof, including the description of some of the repairs performed, were blocked out or covered over, apparently through no fault of plaintiff's. Under the circumstances, the judgment did not render substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remit the matter to the District Court for a new trial.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 07, 2012