Harper v East Coast Funding

Annotate this Case
[*1] Harper v East Coast Funding 2017 NY Slip Op 51956(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2016-2110 N C

Theresa Harper, Respondent,

against

East Coast Funding, Appellant.

D'Ambrosio & D'Ambrosio, P.C. (James J. D'Ambrosio, Esq.), for appellant. Theresa Harper, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Darlene D. Harris, J.), entered March 10, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

Plaintiff seeks in this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000, based on defendant's failure to surrender plaintiff's license plates to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) following the repossession of plaintiff's vehicle by defendant's agent. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff established that, in August 2013, defendant's agent had repossessed her vehicle but had failed to surrender her license plates to the DMV, and that, as a result of the failure to surrender her license plates, her driver's license had been suspended and then restricted for an extended period of time, and she had been charged a $50 suspension termination fee. However, plaintiff failed to establish that she had paid that fee. Plaintiff also alluded to, but failed to prove or substantiate the basis for, an $8 daily fee over a 411-day period, which she claimed she had to pay to the DMV as a result of defendant's agent's failure to surrender her license plates. Plaintiff established that her automobile insurance policy had expired on January 10, 2014 and that she had been charged $3,324.69 for automobile insurance coverage through [*2]January 10, 2014, but failed either to establish what portion of the insurance bill was attributable to the period following August 13, 2013, when her vehicle had been repossessed, or that she had paid the bill. Following the trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

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]).

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 425 requires, among other things, that any firm that repossesses a vehicle shall, within 24 hours of repossessing a vehicle, deliver the license plates on the vehicle to the nearest district office of the DMV either personally or by special delivery first-class mail. Plaintiff's testimony and her documentary evidence established that defendant had failed to comply with that requirement, and defendant failed to refute plaintiff's evidence. While, upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff failed to prove the amounts that she had been charged as a consequence of defendant's failure to comply with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 425, and that she had, in fact, paid such sums, the inadequacy of plaintiff's proof appears to be attributable, at least in part, to the manner in which the trial was conducted. In this circumstance, we conclude that substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807) requires that there be a new trial limited to a determination of plaintiff's actual damages.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

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


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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.