Bob Marc Limousine, Inc. v Murtha

[*1] Bob Marc Limousine, Inc. v Murtha 2010 NY Slip Op 51186(U) [28 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on July 7, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through July 9, 2010; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 7, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-975 N C.

Bob Marc Limousine, Inc., Appellant,

against

Providence Murtha, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered January 2, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs and the matter is remitted to the District Court for the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $350.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action seeking to recover the cost of providing a chauffeured limousine and Rolls Royce to defendant. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment did not provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The record establishes that the parties agreed to be bound by an oral contract (see Aces Mech. v Cohen Bros. Realty & Constr. Corp., 136 AD2d 503 [1988]; Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310 [1987]). It is undisputed that defendant tendered plaintiff's owner a check in the amount of $700 for the chauffeured limousine and Rolls Royce that plaintiff had provided in accordance with the agreement. However, defendant then stopped payment of the check and issued a new check in the amount of $350, for the use of one of the vehicles. In light of the fact that plaintiff performed its obligations under the agreement, the order of the District Court is reversed and the matter remitted to that court for the entry of judgment awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $350, representing the balance owed for the use of the second vehicle.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 07, 2010