Ayo v Roosevelt Sch. Board/Sch. Dist.

[*1] Ayo v Roosevelt Sch. Board/Sch. Dist. 2015 NY Slip Op 51901(U) Decided on December 18, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 18, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
2014-2351 N C

Solomon Ayo and Barbara Ayo, Respondents,

against

Roosevelt School Board/School District, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Douglas J. Lerose, J.), entered May 29, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $549.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for the entry of a judgment dismissing the action.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $600, alleging that, as a result of defendant's negligence, their daughter's cell phone had been stolen from her book bag, which she had placed on the bleachers of her high school gymnasium while she participated in her physical education class. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $549. Defendant appeals.

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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). In order to hold defendant liable for negligence, it was plaintiffs' burden to establish the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and that such breach was a proximate cause of their injuries (see Coral v State of New York, 29 AD3d 851 [2006]). They failed to do so. Nor did plaintiffs establish that a bailment relationship had been created between the parties (see 9 NY Jur 2d, Bailments and Chattel Leases § 11).

We note that, in any event, even if liability had been established, plaintiffs failed to provide the court with sufficient proof of damages to support a money judgment in their favor.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for the entry of a judgment dismissing the action.

Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 18, 2015