Varga v Bay Harbor Motors Corp.

[*1] Varga v Bay Harbor Motors Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 51191(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. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 7, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : STEINHARDT, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ
2009-1314 Q C.  1; -x

Frank Varga, Respondent,

against

Bay Harbor Motors Corp., Appellant.  1; -x

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan, J.), entered November 26, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for the loss of his jet ski. At the nonjury trial, it was established that plaintiff had delivered his jet ski to defendant for repairs and, approximately one month later, defendant had informed plaintiff that the jet ski had been stolen from defendant's yard. After trial, the Civil Court found in favor of plaintiff, awarding him the principal sum of $5,000. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

A bailment is created when a motor vehicle is delivered by its owner to a repair shop for repairs (Warren v Downes, 17 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52291[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; 62 NY Jur 2d, Garages § 95). When there is a showing that the bailee failed to return the car or returned it in a damaged condition, a presumption of negligence arises, thereby establishing a prima facie case of negligence against the repair shop (see generally I.C.C. Metals v Municipal Warehouse Co., 50 NY2d 657 [1980]). The burden then shifts to the bailee to show that it was not negligent (see Dixon v X-Treme Body & Fender, Inc., 20 Misc 3d 130[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51422[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Motors Ins. Corp. v America Garages, 98 Misc 2d 887 [App Term, 1st Dept 1979]; Sealey v Meyers Parking Sys., 147 Misc 2d 217 [1990]).

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 254 [1993]; Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d 822, 823 [1982]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). The determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Kincade v [*2]Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]; see also Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr., 199 AD2d 254; Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d at 823). In the case at bar, the record supports the Civil Court's determination that defendant failed to establish that it was not negligent in storing plaintiff's jet ski while it was awaiting repairs. Furthermore, the fair market value of plaintiff's jet ski was properly established.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the Civil Court's judgment in favor of plaintiff rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Steinhardt, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 07, 2010