Sylvester v 111 Used Car Sales

[*1] Sylvester v 111 Used Car Sales 2015 NY Slip Op 50066(U) Decided on January 15, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 15, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MARANO, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
2013-425 S C

Harold C. Sylvester, Appellant,

against

111 Used Car Sales, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered January 11, 2013. 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 $3,200 for repairs required to be made to a used car which he had purchased from defendant. Although plaintiff purchased the car on December 20, 2010, he did not take possession of the car until April 21, 2011. At that time, plaintiff alleged, both the transmission and brakes were in need of repair. 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]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention on appeal, the District Court admitted into evidence a police department field report, dated May 7, 2011, which only referred to the "check engine" light being illuminated and made no reference to a brake problem, for the purpose of showing that plaintiff had complained about the car shortly after he had taken possession of the car. To the extent that plaintiff seeks damages for the cost of repairing the car's allegedly defective transmission, even if liability were deemed to have been established, plaintiff failed to submit into evidence either a paid bill or two itemized estimates to establish the reasonable value and necessity of such repair (see UDCA 1804). With respect to the remaining defect alleged, the District Court could properly conclude that it arose subsequent to the time the car was tendered to plaintiff. As the record supports the District Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: January 15, 2015