Furino v O'Sullivan

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Furino v O'Sullivan 2013 NY Slip Op 34050(U) March 8, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 23070/2004 Judge: Marguerite A. Grays Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] ..• ... .·' Memorandum NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS ·coUNTY Present fiONOBABLE MARGUERffE A.~ !AS PART~ ..-- --.-....··- ------·-- ----·---------x Index No.: 23070/2004 .ANTIIONY FUR!NO flDJl IOANN MAD'ICS, Plainti.fl(s). -~gainst- TIMOTilYO'SIJ!..LlVAN,O'SULLlVAN SUII.DERS & DEVELOPERS, INC., ANNE O'SULLIVAN, ABC CORP., ABC CQ\!PANY and JOHN DOES l-ZO. Defcndant(s). - ---- ---- x ··--- Hon. Ma.rgueritt A. Gr21ys ln dlis action, plaintiffs asS«l! causes ofaction against the defeodw>tS for: (l) breach of Housing Merchant Implied Wananry on sak of ocw home; (2) breach of cocrract; (3) fuu<I; (4 )negligence and (5) pWlirivedamages. l:>efeodaots eounlenuod plaiotiffs for br=h of cooffact and slander. A trial was held in this action from April 16• through April 30• , 2012. By agreement of the parties, poo!·trial mern0<3nda of law limited to the issue of dauwges were to be ••omitted by May 18, 2012. Upon fw:th.er request of oounscl for 1>oth sid,., the po<t-trial mrnioranda of law submisiion date was extended to June 6, 201?.. ·. . . [* 2] ... . .• ll. .. . •, ~~R=i-mlll!heTtjal The following witness.. testified on behalfof the plaintiff at lrial, plaintiffsAndloo.y Furino and Joann Ml.dtes, HaroldKton&elb Heimer, Alan Caplan, Alben Perna, RobertDujat Gillan teoti6ed oo behalf of the def<oic!ants. A.. The Tcgi:noqy o(Amtonx Furioo Plaintiff Anlllony Fllrino ("pl•intifl'1 Wtified as follows; Pi&mtiJf p"1'CIUoed lb<: propc<1y locettd 11 l S-43 215" Pi>u, 8syside, New Yodt ("lbc ~romlses'1 Crom defenc!anis n-by Ind Allot O' Sullivan. The closing oeeumxl oa Friday, ()aober 11, 2002. OD Seltlrday, Oclobu.12 {2002), th< bas=enlin the prani.>es fioocl<d. '!'here was iwo Jolhree io<bes of W8!£t iD Ille be_,_ l'!aioriftl hired O=t American Rcolomioo Saviees, lDe. (GARS), who ""'ractcd !he water, «m<>•cd tbc carpet and padding. and insta!lod !!ns Jodty . 001 lbc besanelJt. It toolc GARS two dsys to petfoan iti wod<. D<fcodant T'llOOll!y O'Sullivan ("defcndant'1 eomc to lb<: prmllso5 with a phlmbet on Monday, Oclobet 14 [2002). howtvtt d.rendlnt newt inspected the pr=aea att.r the l!ood clcopOtc - sdu:dutod insp«:tions. Dcttndant suggested that & sump pump be installed into tl!t sewer systi;:c:n. but sinco he cou.ld not tell plolntiff if it was li::g&) to.do so, plnintiff dk1 not aJJow Basement Watorproofing Co. of Flu$h.ing, Inc. ("VUlcan'1, which installed three sump 2 --- [* 3] .. Tde Ind hired Al Perna Geocnl CoostNaioa eo.p. to re-tile ~ brolc<n tiles in die bos<meDL' On June 14. 2003,plalnliffC<>Dttactcd with Heimer &gilleering. P.C. to inspect the p<eml$<$. Plainli£!$ ruso had to !Ure Ro«<> Bro.,. Construction luc. to repair water d>nlagc to the first Oooc balh:oom wall caused by a nail which had btco driven into a pipe during the eaoSlrUctian oflbo .,..,,U..S. PlaintiffIUtlhcr t..Uficd that II• bad visited the premises on • .,.,...,.,. OC<OSioos prior to the clooing, andbad access to the basement oo lho.<c visits. He ne-.u observed ilt)y W!ta pencabon or my such ~kms on bJs P<U visds. PWntiff <lid not file a dabD W>dct his (bomc OWDa"S) iDsunince pQlicy fO< ihe wab:rdAmap tolhe ~ bccauoc his ms...,... policy did not provide oovuagc f0< flood.dam113e. Plaintiff fbrther testified that be and dcfcodanl created a ''30 Day Chc:ddist" "' 1h• closing. which listed known dcfedS that <Xist<d "'the pttmises .' Plainlilr clralb:d the liJI', howev"' neitherp;rty sip rt. Plaia:itr DcftndAn& did not fix 11J of dte ite:tns listed oo the checklist. and plaintiff spart 'l'Wmi!rl..iili..:JthatbeValan--'1ill wortingat:hetimcofai>I. ' Pblnti« ll<know~ llw tbe ti}<; bod bocft poni&Uy """''8"1 prior to tho~ 'The cnuQ!mlcd list ccul>in! checl:nwkl •dmi~odly mR<le by plaintill'bc•idc tlle tt.... that hove boeo complelOd. Howov.,, although the lbt Jl>ows check m>rlcs bcncle item numhcts 3.4. 10 ood 16, plsinnlf teslllied th>!"""' n.mbetcd 3,5, 10 "'6 16 have bee.a cun<t<d. • El=p< (O< the tide "(JO Doy Cbcdli")". 3 .... . [* 4] .• ·.. . approximalely $3,000 filcini some of the il<ms on the chccktilt.' Th< potties &!so si~ an agreement at the closing whereby plaiDliffayeed topay defendant $4,880 for eoncre1ewor1< 1n the,.., of the pcoper:<y. Plal.otiff did not make the $4,880 payment since: defendant did cot complete the cheeJdist. On """"'~ pbintilf testiiied that b; ocva bad any ncgoti!tiocs wilh clcfccdmt AnDe O'SullivoA, ud Ktnowtedged 1htt p!amailfs parebascd the plttllis<s from runo1hyO'Sulli-. AN>c,bawevcr, bad CX><>Wn<d'!><pmniseswitbTimo<byO'Su!livan. her husband. PJ.mtifftutilicd lb>! dcfecdsnt kD<w abom the pccbleml with the house prior to the clooing l>ut did not disclose same to plaintiff: B. lhe Testimonx of Harpld Kroogefb HeUncr HuoldKruigtlbHcim«("Heima") testified iu ~lpllt" !ollows: upb;nlifl'o rtqUCSt, Hcimcr pedonncd e physic&!~ o(tbepn:miscs ODJune 14, 2003. JkUS<d water pen~on into Che basc.mtnt and cx.ccssive levels of moi.u\1tt in che walls. Rcimer eould not recall the weolh« ooodit~ on the day of his inspection, but c..slificd that ifit had been rainingb: would have indlcaltd that in bis report. He\ll)Cf c:ooclodcd that the ~ was negligently COOSIN<l<d wilb lllsuflicicntdtainage, w!Uclullowcd for wmr ~ He '"""' that the Vul<:an sys=> iDJtalled ~the flooding did not ,...,,.., the prcbl"" as 1ll<:rl: ..,.. still ele\omd lcvds of moisll>rt in the basetuen! at die lime of the inspecii<11. ' Plaionfftesti!icd be fixed ii"" numbets 15 (S!,625~ 6 (no <OSI), ftOd 12. 4 [* 5] ., ,· . ·. . . should be waler tiel1t. Hcimt< tcstiGcd that be also dc:tcckd otha dcfidc:nci<S in the COl>Scru«ica of I!>. JlC"llistS dllring his lnspcaioo, which inclwlcd impT<lpCrlY laid bard wood ftoe>:ing. a S<ttlc:ment crack in a wall, popping nail h~ds, misalignment of all of the dOOtS, nnd pipes a-lkd too close IO~ walls. Flllthamor<, the cxtcrie< basemtn1 steps were cx=sivcly posed a tripping b..-d and a viollltion of lhe rc)evaat building cod<:. Heim.er also noted tlwa,.,patli'IO Ille bacl<oftllt house, which WIS IS- Mdc, -IOoaarrowfC< OOOIO"saltly . _ . . aad II..: the rear steps or cl>c premises pull •liPllY away from !he house. On cross .xamination, Reimer stated that he cooId not determi~e lhG ~ of me wour pene<mion. He eoWd not n:call lh• wta!licreoodition on th• <!>)' of die site vi.sit, 11.e moililUtc. c . ~~li!l!OllY or A~ Cio!1n iflto a contract on October 15. 2002. He fiu:ther testified that there was 2l S linear feet of w&tet present in the basCll'lcnt of Ch< pmniscs, which was a tremendous 8lll0Wlt of witfr in 5 -- [* 6] •. ,, ' tcjldhcr. He further tcstifu:d that it was uni=al to.,..., that much .. water Wll<os Iha. - a problem in 11": OOQSllUdion ofthe propcny. The qcw chic(iDstalled three sump pumps at the ~sos. Plaintiff paid Vulcan a $2,000 down payment, and SB,300 upoc CQmpletion oflheWIXk. On aoss examinatioa, c.piao a......i tmt the weather has no beoriog on tlus type of condition. In bis opinion, the b -t flooding was cau.sed by faulty w~p, and if die fO<llldaiioo WU sound. DO W>tet should bow mtercd the prmtises. O. The Testimony ofA!be,r!.J3ma Albert Pc.ma testified thatJ1,1: h.lswotked as a co.ornetor &inee 1984, Md is cbe OWDcr of Al Perna Oenmil Construction. p.,.,. ~ le$iilicd that bo mll!Mld and re-Jud tik3 in Ibo i..hroom and io the baodryrocm It the pt<mises dUo to wat<t damage. Plainliffpaid Pc,...•s S'.l,260 bill in fllll. I!. I1!£.:Wlii~~ol>$11.l)yjal RpOen DuJu teJlilied tbat be performed plllmbillg-". at tbc pmni- He fi><ed a bot W1ter leak caused by a screw that went through a pipe. Plaintiff paid the SI S-0 bill oo Jw:ie 7, 2003. F. The Tgtjmgny ofGqyd Rorm Next, Guard Rocco o-fRocco Bros. Constrocti.on. lnoc. testified regudiot the va:t'i.ous itcro.s of work be performed at the premises, including 1<-sctting the door$ throughout !he "°""'· PWntilf paid Rocco $4ZS to break a ptl[tioo of a W1ll. Stl3ig!JtoD out the algcs, and 6 -·- [* 7] ........ )t ... occdcd on the premises. G. lhc I estimony gfloaoo M4dles Plaintiff)oann Madtcs le$Ofied. inttlevant pm, that ii was nilling on the day of th. basemell1 flood. A&r the floodin: oceurted, sb£ called State Farm, bcr home owner's in.ur.nce company, but - IOld Iba! Ibis incidtu was oot covered !l!ldu Ibo potic;)., H. The I<$mlooy o(llmglby O'Sullfw> Defendant Tanothy O'Sullivan ...nfied tbal b,e is in the bu.sin= of buil~iog siogl< family homes. He boilt approximat•ly 40 homes since 1996 0< 1997, and approximately 12 !)Ooc to build.iag plainti!U• bouSe. Defc.tld4nt built plaintiffS' home porsuant to• rootrllC! of ssJ<: ......... himsdf md plaintiffs. TU pa!tico c!o5ed ca tile -~ oa <l<tob<=' 11, 2002. P1amntr called d e ( - t oo !be o=ili>g of lhe closing "'p:dil>g dte flood. but defaldantdidoo<&et !be meaagos Ul)lil I lpm.' l>efeadarit coiled plaimilrS:30 a.m. lhooat day, but plairoiif!Old dei<ndant tbat dcfcOOan! did not oced 10 come to tho pranises tbat day «>me to the premises the ocxt day. When dcfcod.nt went to inspeot ch• prcmj= on Oc!OO<;r 14• (2002}, he observed..,,..., oo the basement floor. Ddeod'11) opened che WBlu/....., --· .. [* 8] . .. •. premixs. However. plaintiff callcd<lcfcndaru lh&.t e-.·~ing and toldbir.o not ro c0tne back. aid 1bal phintiff would I"' ti>c poblem fixed aDd bill dcftndaot. Defendant thus WlC<llcd clJe plumbiogjob and plainliff •ever gave dcimda"':Ille opporluniry to C<Jm• badt., 6x!>e problem. Defendllnl testified that a .oil boring 1es1, whlch shows water table levels aod pcrm<Ui1ily of IOil, was perfuaoed by Alla> Ttclmical Associalion oo the propCl1y prior IO die prCQllses beillg bllilt' OuJcnlly, ~.c!...ms ue installed OD ,.openieswhcrc lb= is . rain of tb"1 magnitude could cause lbt ...tcr table 1D Me. O.&.lclanl coold oo< recall wbclbor he provided plaintiff$ with a copy oftht. boring te$L I< ~ coocn<e dry weU was installed in <he bockyarcl of tbe subject property before lh<o f<>md•rioo wt:i laid. The dry wcU was imWled at!- 3 &d ~ aDd . . COllllec:l:d IO pipes. The pool was im111lcd aJlcr tile dcy weU. Oefeocbnl w>S noc pr=< wbea Ibo pool was being installed. He did not ins1tll the poo~ nor did be iD>ta1I d>e bart!<q_"" or;,, gos tine. ' AI tbe . _ Iha! tbe teor ,... ~ tborc"""' "'old ,;,,.,. been doiDoli,i,.d. 8 oo Ibo pwpetty !bl bod .........., [* 9] . .. ~ ·.' .. . plaintiffsigned llll •u=ne•t dated October I l, ·2002, promising to pay S4,880 to defcodaot to lay ew•u:te ill the n:ar of the pmnit4 Defer.dmt ,... able to use f!>e .,,.,.,..... col performed the.work Wttbregard to the "30 DayO.a:ldisl" or punch 6!!. defeodmn l<Slilied that be didoot sign thc: ell«:klist. Defend.ant t\ll1her testified that be bad completed a punch li•t prior to the: closio& however, phlintilr..,,. to 1lll: cloobi will> the cb<d;!.is< a.od - defcndaot to sign It aod put money in csCIOW. Defendant complc:t<d S-Ome of 11le items oo the list a WR or explained to p.l•intiff "1ly some of the iJoms were not done. The words "30 Day Cbc:<lcli!t" WU< DOI wri- en the sbeet ohat dri •ot si~ .... With Jegard to his eowttac!aim for .iaader, defendaat toltlfted that on or about the llrst weekeocl o f l ' o -, 2002, he aod his wife W<rc lc:avina a . - wbcn he- J?laintilf a.od pla.intill's brvthrr. 'Plaintiff"got in [defendant's] f•ee", aad st&tod "I'll maJco you pci- as Joog .. it taka'. P1aiotiff tben !Old dc:fcodanrs 'Witt, ''yotl< husbmd is a picec ofprbagc". Dc:!<ndant felt thn:ateoed md humiliated. Re went to the polia: :llA!ic>n a doy or two Iara a.ad filed a tepo<t ~ plaintiff b:ad a history of lcavillg vc:bally abusive ,,,_ages on dcfon-'s pbone.1 Dc:reo&nt also instellod an alarm system in his home following tb.i.$ inddenL I. The TcstilJIS¥!v of 10ep!l S<pmjtt 1 Dcf<odanl didoot pcod\¥X a copy of lb< police roport.n.g.dly filed 0< proo! oClhe ~Odqilonem- . 9 ·. [* 10] '. . Joseph Schmitt, a licensed civil eaginee:r, wrified in f<'.lcvaot part as follows: Th~ ...WIS from a soil boriug test ore used to det<nnine bow to~ the fouodatioo of• building. Ifwucr is foond. the foundation should be~ or a clo-wal<liog dovicc iostalkd for drainagt-.. A dry we.II, wh_icb is geocrally ocmnccccd lo gutters or stoxm carcb basins. eoUecu rain"- and al1--s lhe .....,.. to run olf a house ond away from Olba:propenia. Soot. or excavation and con.structiOn performed near to a house. can effect the fuoctioailJ& of a clrywtll aod ca>ISe satumioo. Geoc<ally, the set back for dry wells is 10 !cct li:omlh• SltU.Ctur< and S r- from the proputy line. With repm to ~ C-Onsauction of the premises, S<lunitt testif.oed that silk. soo~ exavalioo « ~an oc:uby. could compcomise a dry wel.l. Additi?na.JJy, SdmUu stated tbat ictdcmcnt cr.cb ~a comatOCl occurrmce in newly construd:d bomu., u ibc grceo wood used in new oonstrucdon C'VCIUwiilydries out, cauoingrnioimal sbrinloi.ge w itbln the 6nt year of """""""'""" Nail pOpS also asmlly oca.r wilhin the fint )'•ar of oonsuuctiou as a teSUlt of wood shrinbg.c. On Cl'OS$ examination~ Schmitt testified that Stvere rain could eause a clumgc io w~ """'tab~. Ho-va-, <OnSln>Clioa or QCO~ was unlikely to disrutb the_,. tabl• unlcu there was a Gba.ngc iD the sou. J. ~ T..U!n<l!IY of[)m!jd Ginw rl!lally, David Gillam testified that be bas W«iEd as a piumlMg cca!rad« r.. 2S 10 ·-- [* 11] , ... .. ... ,· with de(codant bee11u1>e there wos a problem with war.er in th• b8'emcnt. Gillam could oat ~ w!Jether plainti. l' was present at !be time of his visic f Ho loobd ill lb< tr>ps and saw "'!!ti: iu. cllA: pit. He and defendao; disCU«<d instalJing a drain and a sump in !he pil that wouJd pump out wat~ \vhcncvcr l'J.QCCSS8t}'. However, be did 00tdiscuss this with plaintiffs, d•fcndant tho next day and was told lb>! the owner of !he p~ would oot •llow 1llem bock into tl>e bouse. Ar oome lim.• within tbe Collowing six (6) months, GiU.... go< a call lim oae of the plaintiffs asking him to come to !he pmnises and fix a leak io th• filst Door bat!uoom. He WCl)t to the premises and bad to bccak througll the tile to 6x the leak. which WU caused by &scm< that bod~ a pipe. On crcos-cxamination, Oill&n testified th.; he did nol independentlyrttall wh!t da4 he rcrurned to the boust, nor did he have a copy of the. wam.uty, business record. invoice or Tbe relevant dooumenlS ~ed into evidence by plaintil!S include lbe OctOOer II, 1002 Batplo and Sde Deed; lbe Octobrr 12, 200l ao4 Ootob« 14, l002 Gt.RS poid ' Oilbm initially tati1Sed that be coWd oot ~bet ifbc pve de!~ or pbi;oti:8S a. hotDC O'Wtlt:t' s "'arnsutr fu1 hi• 'Wrk. but ~ tcstificd tlw be did uot·sivf: pl.:dntiffa copy ofa ~ty. 11 ........ ~ [* 12] ; .. . .. invoices in the amounts of$ l, 121.00"and S1,226.78, rcspecrivdy; and Ille OctoOet29, 2002 peid Vulcan r=:ipt in lh• amOlllll of $10,300.00. The rel<V"".' docum_ents' tendered by de(e11don1S at trial included the December 2001 Residential Controet ofSaJeaod the October 11, 2002 •gr<emenl signed by plaintiff aod defendant m, 6mdeq ofProof Thc burdai of proof lo on the plainfifl'<0prove by a~ of Ille m&ucc that the~ breocllod a COCllr9Cl. (Se<, T.,...,,, v 561 CcnL Aw. RuL, lnc, 133 AD2d 25). The court uo<e$ in pareioular that a pla.intiff must cst&blisb his entitlM:>e.nl to damat;<S by a fair prepondenn<:e of the cvidmcc. (See, e.g., Prok v Northway l'>Ol'<I Trai/trs, Inc., 27 A03d; Lory v Parsojf, 17 AD3d S4l}. Tue Court funhcr noca 11111 p1""1tim' lhird, Fourth met Fift:h causes of actioa were diSmisvd at trial. The i.mtmt actioo was alto dmllss<d a5 ag;ains1 dd'codalll AMc O'SUilivan 2l the cooclusian of the rrial. The defeudao.t's SO'<lOd coomlCn:laim Cor •lander was also diomiJocd 11 cMI. IY- Mms Now, !Ht."\cr coo.s.Kk:ration of th.~crcdibJe cvideocc submitted a.o.d the te$1.imony ofthe witocssesadduccdailrial,judpeatisawordedinfavor orpW.o.liffsandas~ defendaot Tunoehy O'Sullivan on plainti8' ' Pint and Second ca...,. of llClioa, in IM s of iota!""'°""'"' St,121.02. " 11JC Oclob<o 12. 2002 OARS invoice !iZ !be tp'md liowew:,. Cb~ paid crcdh. Mle r«ci.pl $hows $ 1,12).00 wu accully paid. • 12 -- [* 13] . . .: .. .:.· . The elements ofa ca~ ofaction sounding in brc&Gh ofcontract ace (1) the c:xisteooc of a conll>C( betwc:a> the plaintiff llPd defcruloat; (2) eonsidenlie<>; (3) pcrfonnanee by the plaiotiff ~ (4) a b<ea<h by the °'fen4am; aod (5) damagu to lhe plaiolilfas• result of the dcfend>ot'• breach (J.P. M..-gan ci- v. J.fi. El«tric of.IV,.., r..t 1=. 69 ADJd801 [2010)). Here, it;, undisputed tha1 a eontract existed between pl>intim "buyers aod defeodanl as bullcla and seller, aod that plaintiffs p«funnod thcirobllptioo lh=mder by l<ItderiDg the COOlrltCl price to deC<odoo~ TbroogA Che cn:diblc testimony oad cvida><C p,...cnlcd, plaintifil w.ablisbed tbroui:,b a fair pn:poruloraoec of !he CJ<dible evidence, Iba! 11>o..-pcnCUlllioa probk;Ji. l>illidi oocumd ooe dJ.y~ Ille parties' clOSing on the new home, would g<naal.l)' not OCCllr in a n<Wly """"'1ldcd bD<ioc lb>cllt li.uky ~ Accordingly, plaintil!S arc entitled t<>dnmagcs they incurred u a di=t re9ul! of the wattt pencrnrion. to wit, mom" p>id f0< the SC!Viccs J.'l.Ovidtd by GARS and VUican, tog<:tha with the rqiloccmcnthqialt COSls for th< clsmaied property. The c:oun ealculatcs d>o L'OOUDI of dArnage$ bil!!Cd upo!l the foUowina . . received into evidenoe to v.\t Paid r=:ipt receipts . 6""' QAJlS dared October 12, 2002 (plaintiftS' 3) in Ille amount ofSJ,121.00; p>•d o:ec.ipt li<><tl GARS~ Oc<oOet 14, 2002(plaintiffs' 4) intbe-of$1,22,.7&; paidrcecipts lioai Vulcan Watuproo.fing daled NOV<ltlb<t 12, 2002 8"d No._bc< 13, 2003 ID the IQcal $3,0S3.6S (plaia!ills' 9, a&r £iYing ~t..,,.;,, credils); poid n:cetp< from aain.. ilnginettilll! dared June 14, 2003 in tbcarnO<mtof$74S.OO(pWnti!Is' 11); paid....;ptfrom Puma Tile dated N~ 19, 2002 in the amount 0!$390.67 (plaintill'J' 12); paid receipt 13 _ ... ~ [* 14] .. ' :. - . ( .. ....---·- -· fromJJJ>..,,,. Consuuc6011.w..!April 3. 2003 in th•amouol of$3,260 (pW..tiJf1' l3Y,peid ,ootipt &om K...las Paint Supplied Co. da!t:d Oc!Obet 18, 2002 in Ille IJllOWll o£S367.2S (plallititrs l&A). f~o.ond..: GeocralBusin=t.w§777-o(IXa).ahousingmutboatim;>licd \vi:rrancy Is implied in the conttact for the sa.l.e of a new home. guarantcriog that one yar flOm ad after the wannty dare, cbo home will be free Crom dcfcots doc to unsl:illfW coosuuctioo. ThcCourt no<cs that aHt.a..gbdcftn<bnt IQ!ll<d !hat plainlit'.!Sdid nctci--c: him an "l'J>O"ll<tity to tcpllir Ibo wa!Cr pcnerr>tioa probltm. such •=""' is inapplicable plumbill& ~lecuica~ bonting, cooliog or """tiJadon system dtfccls, whloh would rcquirosudt ooticc (t;cn. B"'L Law §777-4(/)(a)). Plailltitn also faile4 to demonstrate ptima faciecmidc:mentto jltdg,ncnt ford~ sougk rep:djng Ille -list. The testimony adcluctd at lri&l was conlli<ting and unclear .. towbal, ifany, agreement the parties bad rcga<dln,cpl>.e list, when any :rudl agrccmanwu Dcfendanu' post·tri•I motiOll3 to dismiso plaintim · fltsl and Second causes of adi011 att accocdm&IYdeniod. Defendant Timothy O'Sullivan isawardedjudgmw agllinstpWntiffAnlbony F\ltjDo oo !her# Co~aim in ' the'''"'"'"' ofSol,SS0.00, tO&Cebcr with stannocy iol=t fnllD 14 -aa:o'i"' ... [* 15] -' ;· October 9, 2004. Plaintiff ac:Jaiowledged tbe potties' Oclob<r J I, 2002 ..,-_signed . by plamtiff and defondaut, regarding plaintlfl's paymtnt of $4,S&O.OO to defendant to lay oouactt: in tbc rear of the propc:ny. PlaillliU's CO!ll"1tiOD that he did oot maie tllil 1'6)""""1 because ddcadant did JlOt complete the chccldl3t ts unavailing in!.$llluch a.s there was no proof add\ICtd tha1 the ~t W>S 'conditioned upon defeo&ot's «>mplctioo of the chccl:list. Indeed, a reading of the sJined agreemeat mocals thal the O<\ly ceaditioo precedent to pl>.intifi's oblialttioo to rnok.e the paym<nt wo.s thll the tonete"' be usable •s a base for the pcvco e.odoocmateNJ.lydefcctM.. Th=wu ~~from &fendanl Iha! be was able to U$e lhc <:oo<:te"' for dwP"'J>O'"'. DefcndJl<lts' Second e<>W>tcrclaim for slandcrw.,.dUmi>std al trial Additiooally, the Court'"""' thal c!t!"Endaal 'l'lm4Chy O'Sulli- hilc:d to p'-1 lllld "'°'" tllor ""smnincd any special~~ as a rcsul1ofplaintiffs alleged-.Ots, nor did &recdsntestabOsb tbatplaintiff's alleged stat=t111s coostituled slanderper"· No evidence was adduced attrial dll1 defaidant suffered any oconomie loss, or Ill)' it;jucy to bis !nde, bnsi•cu or profcmart as a .:csult of plaintiff's aUeeed def"""10r)' statements (RJ(1h • . SchwtD'1', SO ADJd 1002 {1008}). . causes of actica. The pl.aiOOll's third, fourth and fifth a uses ofactioo wore diSll1i$$ed 1t lrial. The J?ll;lo.tiffs• action is otherwise dismissed 8$ ~r aJI other named defendants. ll ~ 11-J• [* 16] .' ; •' ". . ·-·· .. ·~ . .. Defendant Tunodly O'Sulli..,, is awudcd $4,800.00 on mo fu:st counicr<laim. [lated: t\f>.R 08 111\3 l.S.C. 16 -·

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.