Martyn v Bayville Auto Diagnostic Ctr., Inc.

[*1] Martyn v Bayville Auto Diagnostic Ctr., Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 51446(U) [28 Misc 3d 136(A)] Decided on August 2, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 2, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-1722 N C.

Thomas Martyn, Appellant,

against

Bayville Auto Diagnostic Center, Inc. and NORTH BAY HUMMER, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Robert A. Bruno, J.), entered December 17, 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 a new trial.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for property damage to his automobile. Plaintiff had brought a vehicle, which he had leased from defendant North Bay Hummer, to defendant Bayville Auto Diagnostic Center, Inc. (Bayville) for its first oil change. Bayville returned the vehicle to plaintiff with a stripped bolt and housing adapter, by which the car's oil pan was held, and, as a result, the parts had to be replaced. Bayville asserted that it was a manufacturing defect. North Bay Hummer's representative testified that Bayville caused the damage when it put in a new oil filter. After trial, the District Court found that plaintiff had failed to prove which defendant was responsible for the damage to plaintiff's vehicle and dismissed the action against both defendants.

Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice was not done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Plaintiff made out a prima facie case against both defendants. As to defendant Bayville, a bailment is created when a motor vehicle is delivered 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]; Burane v Poppy's Auto Wreckers, 13 Misc 3d 139[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52240[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]; 62 NY Jur 2d, Garages § 95). When there is a showing that the bailee failed to return the vehicle 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 [*2]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]). We find that a prima facie case of negligence was made out against defendant Bayville. Plaintiff testified that he delivered his seven-month-old vehicle to Bayville for an oil change and Bayville returned his vehicle to him damaged with a stripped bolt.

Plaintiff also made out a prima facie case against defendant North Bay Hummer, establishing that the vehicle, which he had leased from North Bay Hummer, had a defect which was covered under its warranty. Representatives of both defendants testified that the other was liable for the damage to plaintiff's vehicle. Defendant Bayville testified that the stripped bolt was a manufacturing defect and therefore covered under the warranty by defendant North Bay Hummer, and defendant North Bay Hummer testified that Bayville stripped the bolt when it changed the oil.

In light of the prima facie case plaintiff established against both defendants, and each defendant's defense that it was not liable as the other defendant caused the damage to the vehicle, the District Court failed to make a consistent finding of fact as to which of the two defendants was liable for the damage to plaintiff's vehicle.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 02, 2010