Camarinos v Liberty Travel

[*1] Camarinos v Liberty Travel 2006 NY Slip Op 51265(U) [12 Misc 3d 1177(A)] Decided on July 5, 2006 Nassau Dist Ct Fairgrieve, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 5, 2006
Nassau Dist Ct

Arthur J. Camarinos, Plaintiff

against

Liberty Travel, Defendant



SC 233/06



Representation: Arthur J. Camarinos, plaintiff pro se; 19 Kay Avenue, Bethpage, New York 11714; Liberty Travel, by agent Emily Dulik, defendant pro se, 3483 Hempstead Turnpike, Levittown, New York 11756.

Scott Fairgrieve, J.

This case involves the unique issue of whether the plaintiff may obtain a refund on the purchase price of an airplane ticket from the defendant based upon a fear for his life due to Hurricane Rita. The plaintiff, Arthur Camarinos (hereinafter referred to as "Camarinos"), is suing defendant travel agency, Liberty Travel (hereinafter referred to as "Liberty"), for $683.41 for monies owed due to a natural disaster. Based upon the credible evidence adduced at trial, this court makes the following findings of fact and legal conclusions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Camarinos purchased two round-trip airplane tickets through Liberty in order to attend a family reunion in Texas. The American Airlines flight was set to depart on September 23, 2005. Camarinos testified at trial that he believed the departure date was September 25, 2005. On September 25, 2005, due to the news coverage of Hurricane Rita and a fear for his life, Camarinos canceled his flight and attempted to get a refund for both airplane tickets. Hurricane Rita was a category three storm that hit Texas on September 23rd through September 24th, 2005, destroying towns along the Gulf Coast.

Camarinos claims that Liberty owes him a refund of the purchase price of the airline tickets including any late charges associated with the transaction. Liberty, through agent Emily Dulik, testified that, when dealing with Camarinos' request for a refund, they deferred to their and American Airlines' policy of only giving a credit, not a refund, to the customer in cases of customer-initiated cancellations. Liberty explained that when an airline cancels a flight, the customer is given the option of rescheduling the flight or accepting a refund. Liberty argues that because American Airlines did not cancel the flight, Camarinos is only entitled to a credit, not a refund.

The two airplane tickets were booked on American Airlines, departing from New York and [*2]arriving in Dallas, Texas. American Airlines did not cancel any flights to Dallas during the weekend of Hurricane Rita as the hurricane was downgraded to a wind advisory by the time it reached Dallas. The September 23, 2005 flight occurred without incident and there were no changes made to other airlines' flights between Dallas and New York.

LEGAL CONCLUSIONS

Camarinos has not established grounds for a refund of his airplane tickets from Liberty as he was notified on Liberty's credit card charge form that "tickets [were] not transferable, no cash refunds." Camarinos was sufficiently apprised of Liberty's and American Airlines' cancellation policies. Camarinos' personal fear of safety does not establish a prima facie case in this action. Had Camarinos shown some action on the part of American Airlines or Liberty to cancel or alter the flight, he would be entitled to a refund.

This issue is similar to Soury v Tourlite Int'l, 131 Misc 2d 502, 500 NYS2d 925 (Civ Ct 1986), that involved a cancellation of a flight to Athens Greece shortly after a plane was hijacked leaving Athens. In that case, the plaintiff, by letter addressed to the defendant, opted to cancel his trip and demanded a full refund of the airplane ticket purchase price citing the earlier hijacking as his principal reason for doing so. The government had, at the time, issued a "travel advisory" warning air travelers of lax security at the Athens Airport. The charter flight nevertheless flew to Greece without incident and the Civil Court of New York City dismissed the complaint, holding that, even with the travel advisory, the plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case.

In the case at bar, the plaintiff unilaterally attempted to use his own personal fears to justify a rescission of the contract. There is no basis in law for such action. The plaintiff failed to prove a breach of contract or any other legal basis to justify a refund. Thus, the action is dismissed with prejudice.

So Ordered:

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Dated:July 5, 2006

CC:Arthur J. Camarinos, pro se

Liberty Travel

SF/mp