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.

Nancy Garrido, Respondent v. Angelo Grasso

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


April 5, 2011

NANCY GARRIDO, RESPONDENT,
v.
ANGELO GRASSO, APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered November 17, 2009.

Garrido v Grasso

Decided on April 5, 2011

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,100.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action against her landlord seeking the sum of $3,000 for damage caused by water leaks in her apartment. At the non-jury trial, plaintiff showed the court photographs of her apartment, an inspection report, and receipts; these items were exhibited to defendant but were not included in the record on appeal. Following trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,100, and defendant appeals.

It was incumbent on plaintiff to establish her entitlement to the "repairs" for which she sought recovery, and the amount of her damages. From the record, and particularly because the relevant documents and photographs were not made part of the record, it is impossible to discern the scope of repairs or improvements, or their costs, for which plaintiff sought payment; the content of the inspection report that the trial judge saw; whether the repairs or improvements for which plaintiff sought to recover were made before or after the date the inspection report was made; or whether the items for which plaintiff sought to recover were items which defendant was legally obligated to provide for plaintiff. In view of the foregoing, this court cannot perform a meaningful review as to whether the judgment afforded the parties substantial justice in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; see also Feldman v Chugunov, 29 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52121[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Dekhtyar v Destination Travel and Tours, 2001 NY Slip Op 40541[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2001]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial. In view of the foregoing, we pass on no other issue raised on appeal.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur. Decision Date: April 05, 2011

20110405

© 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.