Pfeiffer v Rapid Autoworks, Inc.

[*1] Pfeiffer v Rapid Autoworks, Inc. 2009 NY Slip Op 51392(U) [24 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on June 29, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 29, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and NICOLAI, JJ
2008-1704 RO C.

Franklin B. Pfeiffer, Respondent,

against

Rapid Autoworks, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo, Rockland County (Rhoda F. Schoenberger, J.), entered January 18, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the aggregate principal sum of $3,732 (sic), consisting of the principal sum of $3,000 upon plaintiff's cause of action for "bad engine installation," the principal sum of $632.12 for defendant's alleged failure to return plaintiff's remote key, and the principal sum of $100 for defendant's failure to reinstall a splash pan, together with interest thereon from December 6, 2006.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount of the award on plaintiff's cause of action for "bad engine installation" to the principal sum of $1,300, by dismissing the cause of action based upon defendant's alleged failure to return plaintiff's remote key, and by providing that interest on the award in the principal sum of $1,300 on the cause of action for "bad engine installation" and on the award in the principal sum of $100 for defendant's failure to reinstall a splash pan shall run from December 6, 2007; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action against defendant, an automotive repair shop, to recover the sum of $3,000 for "bad engine installation." At the nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he had brought his used automobile to defendant's shop for various repairs. The automobile required, among other things, a new engine. Defendant accepted delivery and installed a used engine, which did not function properly, and ultimately installed a second used engine, which did function. Defendant charged plaintiff for both the first and second engine installations. Plaintiff argued that he should be responsible only for the cost of one engine installation. Plaintiff further stated that defendant had lost the remote key to his car and had not reinstalled his splash pan. The defense witnesses testified that plaintiff had knowingly executed a document in which he had agreed to pay for both installations, and that plaintiff understood his [*2]responsibilities vis-a-vis defendant.

The Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,732 (sic), which consisted of $3,000 (including various towing charges and lien processing fees) for defendant's installation of the defective first engine; $632.12 for defendant's breach of its duty with respect to the bailment of the remote key; and $100 as damages for defendant's failure to reinstall a splash pan upon its installation of the second engine. A judgment was subsequently entered in the principal sum of $3,732.12 plus interest from December 6, 2006. This appeal by defendant ensued.

Pursuant to section 1807 of the Uniform Justice Court Act, the standard of review on an appeal of a small claims judgment is whether substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (see Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707 [1997]; see also Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]).

We agree with the Justice Court that plaintiff was entitled to recover for the installation of the first engine. However, the amount of damages awarded therefor was improper, since the documents offered into evidence indicate that the cost of the labor for the first engine installation was only $1,300. Accordingly, the amount awarded to plaintiff for "bad engine installation" is reduced to the principal sum of $1,300.

With respect to the court's award of $632.12 for defendant's alleged failure to return plaintiff's remote key, substantial justice requires that said cause of action be dismissed, as there is nothing in the record to support said award. However, we leave undisturbed the award of $100 for defendant's failure to reinstall the splash pan.

We note that the interest on the award of $1,300 as well as the award of $100 should accrue not from December 6, 2006, which date was clearly a typographical error, but rather from December 6, 2007.

Accordingly, in order to provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1807), we modify the judgment by reducing the amount awarded to plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,400, with interest thereon from December 6, 2007. Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Nicolai, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 29, 2009