Cataldo v Fantastic Trans. Corp.

Annotate this Case
Cataldo v Fantastic Trans. Corp. 2014 NY Slip Op 50781(U) Decided on April 30, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ.
2012-2310 N C

Salvatore A. Cataldo, Respondent,

against

Fantastic Trans. Corp. and JACK V. CALDARELLA, Appellants.

[*1]

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (David Goodsell, J.), entered February 27, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by reducing the amount of the award to plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,227.85; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action to recover for damage that defendants conceded they had caused to plaintiff's vehicle, after a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,500.

Pursuant to UDCA 1804, plaintiff submitted estimates from two repair shops to establish the amount of damages sustained. One estimate was in the sum of $3,213.54, and the second was in the sum of $2,500 and included the notation that such cost of repairA exceeded the value of the vehicle. Defendants introduced into evidence a third estimate, which plaintiff had obtained from a third repair shop, which was for the sum of $1,227.85. Under the circumstances presented, we find that substantial justice between the parties (UDCA 1807) requires that the award be reduced to the lowest amount of the three estimates in evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by reducing the amount awarded to plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,227.85.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Tolbert, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: April 30, 2014

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.