Rojas v Muhammad

[*1] Rojas v Muhammad 2014 NY Slip Op 50800(U) Decided on May 7, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 7, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MARANO and GARGUILO, JJ.
2012-1792 S C

Lori Rojas, Appellant,

against

Ubay Muhammad, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District

(C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated April 27, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant had caused her to suffer personal injuries and had damaged her vehicle. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

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 Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). Here, even assuming that plaintiff established defendant's liability, plaintiff failed to establish her damages through competent evidence. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff did not demonstrate that the car was a total loss. Plaintiff likewise failed to establish the cost to repair the vehicle, through expert testimony, a paid invoice, or two itemized estimates (see UDCA 1804). We note that, even had plaintiff demonstrated that the vehicle was a total loss, she failed to establish the value of the car prior to the accident based on its condition at the time (see Babbitt v Maraia, 157 AD2d 691 [1990]). Thus, as the record supports the District Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: May 07, 2014