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.

Dorothy Mcwilliams v. Theresa Matthews

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


December 21, 2012

DOROTHY MCWILLIAMS,
APPELLANT,
v.
THERESA MATTHEWS,
RESPONDENT.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County (Raymond C. Chase, J.), entered February 25, 2011.

McWilliams v Matthews

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 21, 2012

PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and LaSALLE, JJ

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $548.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $2,549.46, representing damages she had allegedly sustained to her rental property. At a non-jury trial, defendant conceded that she owed plaintiff $548 for various repairs and cleaning expenses which plaintiff had incurred after defendant had vacated the premises. Following the trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $548. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.

Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). With respect to the issue of damages, we note that plaintiff did not submit into evidence either a paid bill or two itemized estimates to establish the reasonable value and necessity of each of the alleged repairs for which plaintiff claims defendant is liable (see UJCA 1804; Rodriguez v Mitch's Transmission, 32 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51225[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]). As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and LaSalle, JJ., concur. Decision Date: December 21, 2012

20121221

© 1992-2013 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.