Kapoor v Kuwait Airways Customs Serv. Dept.

[*1] Kapoor v Kuwait Airways Customs Serv. Dept. 2018 NY Slip Op 51450(U) Decided on October 12, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 12, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2017-816 Q C

Shamoli Kapoor, Appellant,

against

Kuwait Airways Customs Service Dept., Respondent.

Shamoli Kapoor, appellant pro se. Condon & Forsyth, LLP (John Maggio of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered June 7, 2016. The judgment, after an inquest, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $4,999. After defendant defaulted, an inquest was held, at which plaintiff testified that she had purchased a $1,726 round-trip ticket for travel on defendant's airline from New York to India, but that, upon her arrival at the airport, she had not been allowed to board defendant's airplane because of the expiration date on her passport. She further alleged that she had previously been misadvised by defendant's employee that she would be permitted to travel even though her passport was due to expire within six months of her anticipated arrival in India. Plaintiff also claimed that, as a result of the actions of defendant's employees, she had lost wages. Following the inquest, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). "[A] small claims judgment may not be overturned simply because the determination appealed from involves an arguable point on which an appellate court may differ; the deviation from substantive law must be readily apparent and the court's determination [*2]clearly erroneous" (Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620, 621 [1986]; see also Tranquility Salon & Day Spa, Inc. v Caira, 141 AD3d 711, 712 [2016]; Hohenberger v Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist., 58 Misc 3d 6, 8 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807).

We note that we do not consider any materials that are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 12, 2018