Dorneval v Sidoti

[*1] Dorneval v Sidoti 2015 NY Slip Op 50907(U) Decided on June 11, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 11, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2014-258 RO C

Wilkins Dorneval, Appellant,

against

Nicole Sidoti, Respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Stony Point, Rockland County (William F. Franks, J.), entered May 7, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $543.69.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $869.53; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $2,209.34, representing alleged damage to his vehicle as a result of a collision with defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff claimed that both of his vehicle's taillights, as well as its rear bumper and trunk, had been damaged in the accident. Prior to the commencement of this action, defendant's insurer had offered plaintiff $543.69 to compensate him for the damage to his vehicle's rear bumper and right taillight. Plaintiff had rejected that amount because it was insufficient to cover the cost to repair the bumper and right taillight and because it did not include any amount for the claimed damage to the trunk or left taillight. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $543.69, the amount previously offered by defendant's insurer. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the Justice Court could properly determine, based on the photographic evidence, that plaintiff was entitled to be compensated only for the damage to his vehicle's rear bumper and right taillight. As to the amount to be awarded for that damage, plaintiff submitted two itemized estimates to establish the reasonable value and necessity of the repairs (see UJCA 1804) to, among other things, his vehicle's rear bumper and right taillight. The lower of those estimates indicated that the cost of replacing the rear bumper, including labor and supplies, was $758.91, and that the cost of replacing the right taillight, including labor and supplies, was $110.62, for a total of $869.53. Consequently, we conclude that substantial justice warrants an increase in the amount awarded plaintiff.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by increasing the amount awarded plaintiff by $325.84, to the principal sum of $869.53.

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

Decision Date: June 11, 2015