Rosano v Smart-Bush

[*1] Rosano v Smart-Bush 2017 NY Slip Op 51955(U) Decided on December 28, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ANTHONY MARANO, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
2016-2069 N C

Lawrence R. Rosano, Appellant,

against

Linda D. Smart-Bush, Respondent.

Lawrence R. Rosano, appellant pro se. Adams, Hanson & Kaplan (John P. Martorella, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Darlene D. Harris, J.), entered May 28, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $857.31.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $4,786.53 for damage to his car. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he had been a passenger in his own car when it was "broadsided" by defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff also asserted that, although it was dark out, the headlights on defendant's car had been off. Defendant testified that the headlights on her car had been on, and that she had been proceeding straight through an intersection on a green light when plaintiff's vehicle "turned from the left and came right across the front of [her] car," causing the collision. Plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment after trial awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $857.31.

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, 126 [2000]). Here, the judgment indicates that the District Court may have apportioned liability between the drivers of the vehicles involved in the action. We note that the [*2]cases of Kalechman v Drew Auto Rental, Inc. (33 NY2d 397 [1973]) and Schuyler v Perry (69 AD3d 33 [2009]), upon which plaintiff relies, are not to the contrary.

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination, as it provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807). We note that we do not consider those materials submitted on appeal which are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 28, 2017