Dixson v GNC Live Well
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 20, 2005
Civil Court, New York County
Julius E. Dixson, Jr., Claimant,
against
GNC Live Well and LISA MARTIN, d/b/a GNC LIVE WELL, Defendants.
SCNY 1716/05
Shlomo S. Hagler, J.
When are the characteristics of an United States fifty dollar bill similar to an United States five dollar bill? This unusual set of circumstances occurred at the trial of this
small claims action on September 21, 2005.
Findings of Facts
Claimant Julius E. Dixson, Jr. ("claimant" or "Dixson") commenced this small claims action to recover fifty dollars from defendants GNC Live Well ("GNC") and Lisa Martin ("Martin"), the sole proprietor of GNC.
On Saturday, April 9, 2005, Dixson entered the store owned and operated by defendants located at 121 West 125th Street, New York, New York ("defendants' store"). At about 7:05 P.M. on that day, Dixson purchased several items from defendants costing $17.85. Dixson tendered a $100 bill to the defendants' cashier, Jamil Kearse ("Kearse" or "cashier"). Kearse gave Dixson $82.15 back in change consisting of the following denominations: a fifty dollar bill; a twenty dollar bill; a ten dollar bill; two one dollar bills; and 15 (Claimant's
Exhibit "2"). The fifty dollar bill bearing serial number CL15969900A was noticeably torn
and then taped together vertically on the left side running from the edges of the upper and lower "50" markings ("the taped fifty dollar bill") (Claimant's Exhibit "3").
Dixson took his change and left defendants' store. At home, Dixson noticed that the taped fifty dollar bill that Kearse gave him "looked a little funny." Dixson then made several attempts to ascertain its genuineness as legal tender.
On Tuesday, April 12, 2005, Dixson went back to defendants' store and con-fronted Kearse with the taped fifty dollar bill that he gave him as change on Saturday. Kearse seemed to have recognized the taped fifty dollar bill and he walked with him over to Martin. Martin then told Dixson that he "didn't get that [the taped fifty dollar bill] here." Martin refused to exchange the taped fifty dollar bill Dixson received from Kearse for other legal tender. On
the next day, Wednesday, April 13, 2005, Dixson returned the items he purchased at defendants' [*2]store. Defendants refunded Dixson $21.97, or $4.12 more than he originally paid (Claimant's Exhibit "5").
Dixson subpoenaed both Kearse and Martin to testify at trial as well as for production of the April 9, 2005 sales receipt log for defendants' store. Kearse failed to appear for trial. Martin produced the sales receipt log for April 9, 2005 which demonstrated that at least two fifty dollar bills were tendered on that day to defendants prior to Dixson's sale at 7:05 P.M. (Claimant's Exhibit "6").
Martin also testified that it is defendants' store policy to check the genuineness
of cash tendered for payment through observation and by utilizing a special marker to determine if the paper is legal tender. According to Martin, the cashier is directed to mark the bill and it is legal tender if it turns yellow (Defendants' Exhibit "A"). Martin claimed that the taped fifty dollar bill didn't come from defendants' store and it is, nonetheless, legal tender based on her own opinion. This Court credits Dixson's testimony over Martin's testimony.
Conclusions of Law
The burden of proof in this small claims action is on the claimant to come forward with evidence at trial so as to "... do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law ..." (Civil Court Act §1804). However, the trial may be conducted in an informal and simplified manner and the rules of evidence and pleading requirements are more relaxed than in a plenary Civil Court action (i.e., the court "... shall not be bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence ...") Id.
Issue
The issue to be determined herein is whether ordinary observation or expert testimony is required to find that an alleged United States fifty dollar bill is not legal tender.
Expert Testimony
An expert opinion is generally required if the subject matters involve information
or questions beyond "the ordinary knowledge and experience" of the trier of facts. See, Matott
v. Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 423 NYS2d 645 (1979). However, "where the matters are within the experience and observation of the ordinary [jurors or triers of facts] from which they may draw their own conclusions and the facts are of such a nature as to require no special knowledge or skill, the opinion of experts is unnecessary." Meiselman v. Crown Heights Hosp. Inc., 285 NY 389, 396 (1941). Testimony of laypersons derived from simple observation of facts that are apparent or obvious upon inspection are admissible evidence without resort to expert testimony. See, Prince, Richardson on Evidence §366 (Tenth Edition); Dubois v. Baker, 30 NY 355 (1864).
The identification of counterfeit currency in a criminal case has been held to
be matter beyond ordinary knowledge and subject to expert opinion in People v. Duchowney, 166 AD2d 769, 563 NYS2d 524 (3d Dept 1990). However, the Duchowney holding is distinguishable from the facts of this small claims action because it is readily apparent or
obvious from the objective evidence that the taped fifty dollar bill is not legal tender without resort to expert testimony. See, Dubois v. Baker and Richardson on Evidence at §366, Id.
In this small claims case, it appears from the naked eye that the image of a fifty dollar bill was superimposed or copied onto a legitimate five dollar bill to create the taped fifty dollar bill. In other words, a five dollar bill was converted into a fifty dollar bill. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming that the taped fifty dollar bill is not legal tender for the reasons stated [*3]below (Claimant's Exhibit "3"). For instance, there are numerous misaligned words on
the subject currency such as, "This Note Is Legal Tender For All Debts, Public and Private," "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA," "Treasurer of the United States" and "Secretary of the Treasury." The word, "FIVE" on the middle right side of the fifty dollar bill is visible above the word, "FIFTY." Also, the picture of the Lincoln Memorial (which is on the back of a five dollar bill) is bleeding through on top of the picture of the U.S. Capitol emblazoned on the back of the taped fifty dollar bill.
The Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") provides for the distinctive paper and features utilized in the printing of United States currency. Specifically, the CFR prescribes various security features such as "security threads" and "watermarks" contained in the currency paper as follows:
...[C]urrency paper shall contain, for denominations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, security
threads embedded beneath the surface of the paper
during the manufacturing process. Security threads
shall contain graphics consisting of the designation
"USA" and the denomination of the currency, expressed
in alphabetic or numeric characters. In addition to
the security thread, for the denominations prescribed
by the Secretary of the Treasury, the paper will bear
a watermark identical to the portrait to be printed on
the paper. (Emphasis Added).
See, 31 CFR 601.2.
Here, the security thread, which is a vertically embedded thread to the right of the portrait, indicates the words "USA FIVE," rather than the requisite "USA 50." While the portrait of Ulysses S. Grant is on the currency, the watermark of Grant, which should be identical on the right of the portrait, is not visible from both sides against a light. Instead, a watermark of Abraham Lincoln (which is on the front of a five dollar bill) appears embedded in the taped fifty dollar bill, rather than Grant.
Conclusion
Based on the observation of the evidence, it is apparent and obvious from a layperson's perspective that the subject fifty dollar bill is not legal tender. In other words, we
do not need the expertise of the famous fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes, to come to this conclusion; even Dr. John Watson could have easily done so.
Accordingly, this Court directs the clerk to enter a money judgment in favor
of the claimant and against the defendants in the sum of $45.88 ($50 less $4.12) with interest thereon from April 9, 2005, plus costs and disbursements of this small claims action (including, but not limited to, subpoena costs of $30).
Claimant is advised that he must surrender the subject fifty dollar bill bearing serial number CL15969900A to the proper authorities as possession of the alleged counterfeit [*4]currency may be a violation of Title 18, Section 472 of the United States Code. A copy of this decision and order is being sent to the United States Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Courtesy copies of this decision and order have been mailed to the parties.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
Dated:New York, New York /s/ Hon. Shlomo S. Hagler
October 20, 2005J. C. C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
