Lopez v Dobler Chevrolet, Inc.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Lopez v Dobler Chevrolet, Inc. 2007 NY Slip Op 51738(U) [16 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on September 12, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 12, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-1434 N C.

Margarita Lopez, Appellant,

against

Dobler Chevrolet, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Anna R. Anzalone, J.), entered January 11, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.


Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover the cost of an extended warranty on an automobile she purchased from defendant, as well as repair costs. Plaintiff contended that she was charged for an extended warranty although she did not request it, since she had a warranty from the manufacturer. This claim was settled during trial, with defendant agreeing to credit plaintiff's loan account with the cost of the warranty, and is, therefore, not before this court on this appeal. If defendant has failed to comply with the terms of the settlement, plaintiff's remedy is to bring an action against defendant for breach of the agreement.

Insofar as the repair costs are concerned, plaintiff did not offer any expert witnesses or sufficient evidence to establish her prima facie case. She submitted only one estimate to prove her damages, although two itemized estimates or one itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, were required (see UDCA 1804). We, therefore, find that the trial court properly rendered judgment in favor of defendant, providing the parties with substantial justice in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 12, 2007

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.