Point Elec., Inc. v Tobin

[*1] Point Elec., Inc. v Tobin 2015 NY Slip Op 51134(U) Decided on July 27, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 27, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2014-338 N C

Point Electric, Inc., Appellant,

against

Bert Tobin, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Joy M. Watson, J.), entered March 29, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the sum of $1,749 for electrical work rendered. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action.

In a commercial claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807-A [a]; see UDCA 1804-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). The record establishes that a settlement meeting was held between the parties to resolve their dispute with respect to the balance due on their contract. Defendant gave plaintiff a check for $720, which was marked as the "final balance." Plaintiff cashed the check. Under these circumstances, we find that the parties' actions constituted an accord and satisfaction (see Congregation Chachmei Sefarad v Dickman, 198 AD2d 395 [1993]; Auster v Springut, 42 Misc 3d 145[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50342[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]). Consequently, the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A [a]; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 27, 2015