Burris v Masaryk Towers Corp.

[*1] Burris v Masaryk Towers Corp. 2020 NY Slip Op 51154(U) Decided on October 2, 2020 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 2, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Cooper, Higgitt, JJ.
&em;

Tondalisa Burris, Plaintiff-Respondent, - -

against

Masaryk Towers Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered July 25, 2019, after trial, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,625.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered July 25, 2019, modified by vacating the damage award and directing a new trial on the issue of damages only; as modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

The trial court achieved "substantial justice" consistent with substantive law principles (see CCA 1804; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), in resolving the liability aspect of this small claims action in plaintiff's favor, since the evidence permits a finding that defendant wrongfully breached the parties' written agreement regarding plaintiff's use of the "Community Room" in defendant's building. Based upon the evidence as a whole, the trial court was warranted in finding that plaintiff did not commit "objectionable conduct" under Article 8 of the agreement by misrepresenting the "purpose" of the event to be held in the room. The court could rationally conclude that plaintiff's scheduled meet and greet event was a "social function for the invited guests of [plaintiff]," as that term is used on defendant's preprinted contract.

The damages award is not sustainable, however. After expressly informing the parties at trial that damages for a deposit allegedly made to a restaurant for food would not be awarded, and curtailing defendant's defense on this issue, the court "reconsidered" the issue after the trial was concluded and awarded plaintiff those and other damages. The ends of "substantial justice" will best be served by affording the parties a new trial on damages, at which defendant will have a full opportunity to counter plaintiff's damage claims (see e.g. Amankwa v Eastchester Hgts., L.P., 41 Misc 3d 138[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51923[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concurI concur
Decision Date: October 2, 2020