SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
August 5, 2011
ROCHELLE BAER AND DAVID BAER, RESPONDENTS,
BETH SUSAN CHIGER, APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Donald Birnbaum, J.), entered September 30, 2009.
Baer v Chiger
Decided on August 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,355.
ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the action is dismissed.
Plaintiffs brought this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 as damages resulting from defendant's alleged breach of a contract for the sale of a private residence. At a non-jury trial, plaintiffs established that defendant, the seller, represented her home as a two-family house when, in fact, the certificate of occupancy demonstrated that it was a one-family house. According to the contract of sale, defendant was entitled to cancel the contract if the home renovations necessary to obtain a two-family certificate of occupancy would cost her more than $500, provided she refund plaintiffs' down payment and "the net cost of examination of title." The record establishes that rather than making the required renovations, defendant refunded plaintiffs' down payment and paid for the examination of title. Following the trial, the District Court, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,355.
Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice was not done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 ; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 ). Plaintiffs failed to establish any breach of contract by defendant. There has been no showing that defendant's cancellation of the contract was wrongful or that defendant failed to comply with the terms of the contract upon cancellation. It was conceded that defendant returned the down payment and paid for the cost of the examination of title (see Andersen v Ferdinand, 17 AD3d 386, 387 ). Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the action is dismissed.
Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 05, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.