Sommers v Gutierrez

[*1] Sommers v Gutierrez 2021 NY Slip Op 50236(U) Decided on March 18, 2021 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 18, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : JERRY GARGUILO, J.P., ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ
2020-225 D C

Jeffrey Sommers, Appellant,

against

Jean Gutierrez, Respondent.

Jeffrey Sommers, appellant pro se. Jean Gutierrez, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Beekman, Dutchess County (John C. Garito, J.), entered September 10, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking to recover $1,311 for damages sustained when a shopping cart defendant was removing groceries from tipped over and allegedly hit plaintiff's vehicle. After a nonjury trial, at which plaintiff submitted only one estimate for the repair of his vehicle, the Justice 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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Section 1804 of the Uniform Justice Court Act provides in pertinent part as follows:

"An itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates for services or repairs are admissible in evidence and are prima facie evidence of the reasonable value and necessity of such services and repairs."

A review of the record indicates that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof to establish his alleged damages, as plaintiff failed to submit a paid bill or two estimates for the repair of his vehicle (see UJCA 1804) or to present expert testimony sufficient to establish the reasonable value and necessity of the repairs (see Rodriguez v Mitch's Transmission, 32 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51225[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]; [*2]Monteforte v Jamisha Auto. Corp., 23 Misc 3d 144[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51096[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the issue of liability.

As the court's dismissal of the action rendered substantial justice (see UJCA 1804, 1807), we find no basis to disturb the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

GARGUILO, J.P., EMERSON and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: March 18, 2021