Gal v Powell

[*1] Gal v Powell 2015 NY Slip Op 50616(U) Decided on April 16, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 16, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : GARGUILO, J.P., MARANO and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2013-2660 N C

Arie Gal Doing Business as STAR EXEMPTION ADVISOR, Appellant,

against

Pauline C. Powell, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Michael A. Ciaffa, J.), entered June 12, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,293.96.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover for breach of a contract pursuant to which plaintiff rendered services in obtaining for defendant a school tax relief (STAR) exemption (see RPAPL 425). Following a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action, finding that plaintiff had failed to establish his prime facie case.

On an appeal in a small claims matter, our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice has been done between the parties "according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Here, the judgment did not render substantial justice. The evidence demonstrated that defendant had entered into a signed written agreement whereby plaintiff would seek to obtain a STAR exemption for defendant, that plaintiff had performed his services pursuant to the contract, that defendant had received the STAR exemption for the school year for which plaintiff applied, and that defendant had failed to pay plaintiff for his services. Thus, plaintiff established, prima facie, his cause of action for breach of contract (see Maser Consulting, PA v Viola Park Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d 836 [2012]). Defendant failed to show that plaintiff's services were inadequate or that they were not the impetus that led to the STAR reduction.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,293.96.

Garguilo, J.P., Marano and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: April 16, 2015