Virtual Works, LLC v Bridge Communication Corp.

[*1] Virtual Works, LLC v Bridge Communication Corp. 2018 NY Slip Op 50480(U) Decided on April 5, 2018 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 5, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : JERRY GARGUILO, J.P., ANTHONY MARANO, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
2016-2587 N C

Virtual Works, LLC, Doing Business as The Intelligent Office, Appellant,

against

Bridge Communication Corp. and Gil Puentes, Respondents.

Cristina Prieto, Esq., for appellant. Bridge Communication Corp. and Gil Puentes, respondents pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Scott H. Siller, J.), entered May 8, 2015. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this commercial claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $3,261.65, alleging that plaintiff sustained damages as a result of its reliance on misinformation that had been provided to it by defendant Gil Puentes, owner of defendant Bridge Communication Corp. Plaintiff alleged that Puentes had erroneously conveyed to plaintiff that its new telephone carrier would have a certain rollover feature. Puentes interposed a counterclaim to recover for services that defendants had performed for plaintiff when installing the new telephone system. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the District Court's judgment as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.

In a commercial claims action, our review is limited to determining whether "substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive [*2]law" (UDCA 1807-A [1]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff did not establish the elements of a claim for promissory estoppel or negligent misrepresentation. To establish a claim based on promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must allege (1) a clear and unambiguous promise, (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made, and (3) an injury sustained in reliance on the promise (see Williams v Eason, 49 AD3d 866 [2008]; Gurreri v Associates Ins. Co., 248 AD2d 356 [1998]). To recover under a theory of negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to impart correct information because of some special relationship between the parties, that the information imparted was incorrect or false, and that the plaintiff had reasonably relied upon the information provided (see Pappas v Harrow Stores, 140 AD2d 501 [1988]). Here, not only did plaintiff fail to establish that it had changed telephone carriers solely based on its reliance on Puentes's assertion that the new carrier would have a certain rollover feature, but plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that the new carrier did not have a rollover feature. Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish how its reliance on Puentes's assertion had caused it injury.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1807-A [1]).

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 05, 2018