Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Andrew M. Engel, J.), entered August 13, 2010.
Kassim v East Hills Chevrolet
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff claims that defendant, a car dealership, sold him a used car which was defective at the time of sale. Plaintiff ultimately had the car's transmission repaired by another dealership and seeks to recover $3,146, representing the amount he paid to the other dealership for that repair. After a non-jury trial, the District Court found in favor of defendant, and a judgment was entered dismissing the action.
Our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done between the parties "according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807). The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 ). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 ).
Plaintiff conceded at trial that he had never brought his vehicle back to defendant to give defendant an opportunity to cure the allegedly defective transmission. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant was in violation of the Used Car Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-b). Nor did the evidence at trial establish that the transmission was defective at the time plaintiff had purchased the vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 417).
As substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807), there is no basis for this court to disturb the District Court's determination. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.