Ball Cab Corp. v Laguer

[*1] Ball Cab Corp. v Laguer 2006 NY Slip Op 52155(U) [13 Misc 3d 1237(A)] Decided on November 6, 2006 Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County Edwards, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 6, 2006
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Ball Cab Corp., Plaintiff,

against

Brunilda Laguer, Defendant.



46824/05

Genine D. Edwards, J.

In this action the plaintiff is seeking to recover compensation for property damage sustained by its vehicle. On August 1, 2003, an accident occurred between plaintiff's vehicle, driven by Mohammed Miah and defendant's vehicle, which was driven by the defendant. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff claims that its vehicle sustained $6,496.61 in damages and that it suffered loss of use in the amount of $2,100.00.

This Court finds credible the testimony of Mr. Miah, which indicated, inter alia, that plaintiff's vehicle was impacted by the defendant's vehicle while Mr. Miah was making a left turn from Adams Street onto Livingston Street, in Brooklyn. This testimony was not sufficiently challenged by the defendant. Thus, plaintiff properly met its burden of proving that the defendant was liable for this motor vehicle accident.

With respect to damages, the plaintiff proffered the testimony of Paul Stout, the manager of J & I Maintenance Corporation, the shop where the plaintiff's vehicle was repaired. Mr. Stout's duties included overseeing repairs performed to taxis and preparing repair estimates. Mr. Stout prepared the repair estimate for plaintiff's vehicle, and that estimate was admitted into evidence. Mr. Stout testified about the damage sustained by plaintiff's vehicle; that certain parts were replaced, while other parts were repaired; and the total cost of the labor and parts. Mr. Stout also testified that the taxi was out of service for 10-11 days due to the repair work that was performed. His calculation determined that plaintiff's loss of use of its vehicle amounted to $2,100.00. Mr. Stout never testified as to: how he arrived at the repair/replacement costs; why the charges specified in the repair estimate were reasonable; the pre-collision or post-collision value of plaintiff's vehicle; or the pre-collision condition of plaintiff's vehicle. Tanmar Service Corp. v. Yuen, 187 Misc 2d 763 (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Kings County 2001). Therefore, plaintiff did not offer probative evidence of the costs of the repairs. Moreover, Mr. Stout's calculation of the loss of use amount was unpersuasive. This Court finds that the plaintiff failed to prove damages. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for failure to prove damages. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. [*2]

Dated: November 6, 2006

__________________________________

Genine D. Edwards, J.C.C.