Galle v Verrone

Annotate this Case
[*1] Galle v Verrone 2006 NY Slip Op 50740(U) [11 Misc 3d 143(A)] Decided on April 14, 2006 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 14, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and TANENBAUM, JJ
2005-1100 W C.

Joyce Galle, Respondent,

against

Perry Verrone, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Lewisboro, Westchester County (Marc A. Seedorf, J.), entered February 9, 2005. The judgment, as amended, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,500.


Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action based on water damage to plaintiff's condominium after defendant's water heater burst, we are satisfied that substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1807). Although defendant correctly notes that two written estimates are necessary to establish the reasonable cost of repairs (UJCA 1804), and that plaintiff provided only one written estimate, the testimony of defendant's own expert witness as to said cost, the low range of which the court adopted as its measure of damages, provided a proper basis for the monetary award (Mascolo v B. Reitman Blacktop Inc., 8 Misc 3d 133[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51162[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Further, since there is support in the record for the court's determination as to defendant's negligence, we cannot say that the judgment was so clearly erroneous as to have denied the parties substantial justice (UJCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]; Smith v Green, 10 Misc 3d 146[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50151[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; Lampke v Colquhoun, 8 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51029[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 14, 2006

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.