Amico v Kaftan

[*1] Amico v Kaftan 2020 NY Slip Op 50311(U) Decided on February 27, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 27, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, JERRY GARGUILO, JJ
2019-403 D C

Betty Amico, Respondent,

against

Trevor Kaftan, Doing Business as N-Hance Wood Refinishing, Appellant.

Trevor Kaftan d/b/a N-Hance Wood Refinishing, appellant pro se. Betty Amico, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Beacon, Dutchess County (Rebecca S. Mensch, J.), entered October 31, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,815.91.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $2,804.73; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $5,000 for breach of contract, in that defendant allegedly failed to provide proper refinishing services.

At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that she had hired defendant to refinish her kitchen cabinets. It was agreed that the cabinets would be finished with the wood grain showing. However, after defendant reinstalled the cabinets, plaintiff was not satisfied with the cabinets because the wood grain was not visible as promised. Plaintiff submitted one estimate in the sum of $7,850 and a second estimate in the sum of $2,804.73 to establish the reasonable value and necessity of corrective repairs. Following the trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,815.91, and defendant appeals.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the City Court's determination that defendant's workmanship was defective was supported by the record. Plaintiff submitted two estimates to correct the problem, which estimates established, prima facie, the reasonable value and necessity of the alleged repairs (see UCCA 1804). However, in awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,815.91, the judgment did not provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]), as substantial justice requires that the award in favor of plaintiff be limited to the amount of the lower estimate, $2,804.73.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $2,804.73.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: February 27, 2020