New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
May 15, 2012
ROSEMARY BECCACECI, APPELLANT,
U.S. FUNDING CONSULTANTS AND U.S. MODIFICATION AGENCY, RESPONDENTS.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Dennis M. Cohen, J.), entered June 29, 2010.
Beccaceci v U.S. Funding Consultants
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 15, 2012
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
The judgment, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified by striking the portion thereof that dismissed so much of the action as is against defendant U.S. Modification Agency and by providing that plaintiff is awarded the principal sum of $3,550 as against that defendant; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff established, at a non-jury trial, that she had paid defendant U.S. Modification Agency the sum of $3,550 as a fee to arrange for a modification of the mortgage on her house. After trial, the District Court dismissed the action, finding that plaintiff's mortgage had been modified, as that term was defined in the contract between plaintiff and defendant U.S. Modification Agency, and that the modification had been brought about by U.S. Modification Agency's efforts. Consequently, the District Court determined that defendant U.S. Modification Agency was entitled to retain its fee. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment did not render substantial justice 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 ).
Although plaintiff paid defendant U.S. Modification Agency a fee of $3,550 to arrange for a reduction of the interest rate on her monthly mortgage payments on her house, defendant U.S. Modification Agency failed to successfully negotiate a reduction on the mortgage's interest rate and, in fact, plaintiff ultimately had to pay an additional $50 monthly on her mortgage. Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal sum of $3,550 as against defendant U.S. Modification Agency. We leave undisturbed the dismissal of so much of the action as is against defendant U.S. Funding Consultants as no basis was shown for imposing liability upon that defendant.
Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur. Decision Date: May 15, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.