Garraway v Cummo

[*1] Garraway v Cummo 2018 NY Slip Op 51878(U) Decided on December 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 13, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : BRUCE E. TOLBERT, J.P., JAMES V. BRANDS, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
2017-1999 N C

Gloria Melsere Garraway, Appellant,

against

Matthew James Cummo, Respondent.

Gloria Melsere Garraway, appellant pro se. Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Esqs. (Joel A. Sweetbaum of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Darlene D. Harris, J.), entered April 11, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of only $492.91.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $985.82; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $985.82 for damage to her car. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that there were two left-turn lanes and that plaintiff's vehicle had been in the right one and defendant's vehicle had been in the left one during their simultaneous left turns. Plaintiff further testified that defendant had partially swerved into her lane, damaging the left side of her car's rear bumper, when both vehicles were making the left turns. Defendant testified that he did not leave his lane and that plaintiff had swerved into his lane while the cars were turning, causing the collision. He indicated that his car's right side bumper had come into contact with plaintiff's left side "quarter panel." Plaintiff presented proof that her damages amounted to $985.82. Plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment after trial awarding her the principal sum of only $492.91.

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 awarding plaintiff exactly 50% of her established damages, the District Court's decision clearly constituted a compromise regarding liability for the accident. Upon a review of the record, we are of the opinion that plaintiff demonstrated that she was in her lane when her car was hit, without any fault on her part. Consequently, the judgment did not [*2]provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $985.82.

TOLBERT, J.P., BRANDS and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 13, 2018