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.

Paderno Konstantin v. Aerosvit Airlines

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


March 21, 2013

PADERNO KONSTANTIN,
RESPONDENT,
v.
AEROSVIT AIRLINES,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), dated May 19, 2011.

Konstantin v Aerosvit Airlines

Decided on March 21, 2013

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SOLOMON, JJ

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $434.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the action is dismissed.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $734, representing damages he allegedly incurred as a result of a delay in international air travel. At a non-jury trial, the evidence established that plaintiff had purchased an airline ticket from defendant to travel from Kiev, Ukraine, to New York, with an intermediate stop in Tel Aviv, Israel. However, due to a delay leaving Kiev, plaintiff failed to make his connecting flight in Tel Aviv. Defendant provided him with a hotel room in Tel Aviv and a ticket to complete his journey on El Al Airlines. Plaintiff arrived in New York on December 26, 2010, 13 hours later than originally scheduled. Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $434.

Even in the Small Claims Part of the court, proof of damages is an essential element of a prima facie case (see Estevez v Skorishchenko, 33 Misc 3d 138[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52076[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Since plaintiff failed to provide any proof of his claimed expenses, we conclude that the judgment in his favor failed to render substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the action is dismissed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: March 21, 2013

20130321

© 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.