Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Deborah Trivigno v. Christopher Uryevick

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


March 8, 2010

DEBORAH TRIVIGNO,
RESPONDENT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER URYEVICK,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered October 31, 2008.

Trivigno v Uryevick

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 8, 2010

PRESENT:NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,500.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $1,600; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action to recover $3,500 pursuant to a separation agreement wherein she and defendant, her ex-husband, had agreed that they would be equally responsible for any major or structural repairs done to the marital home, in which plaintiff had continued to live with their children. After a non-jury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the full amount sought.

The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see e.g. Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see e.g. Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). The evidence, including itemized invoices that were marked paid (see UDCA 1804), supports the District Court's award of $825 for repairs done to the driveway and $775 for the work done on the wood floors. However, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of the reasonable value and necessity of the paint job for which she seeks partial reimbursement (cf. UDCA 1804).

Accordingly, we reduce the judgment in favor of plaintiff from the principal sum of $3,500 to the principal sum of $1,600 in order to provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126).

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: March 08, 2010

20100308

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.