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.

Michael Marom, Respondent v. Mark Gordon and Audrey Pioret

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


April 4, 2013

MICHAEL MAROM, RESPONDENT, --
v.
MARK GORDON AND AUDREY PIORET, APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Barbara A. Leak, J.), entered July 21, 2011.

Marom v Gordon

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 4, 2013

PRESENT: IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ

The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,464 and dismissed defendants' counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by providing that plaintiff's cause of action is dismissed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against his neighbors, alleging that they had vandalized survey markers on specified property and had caused construction delays by deliberately parking their car in such a way as to block access to that property. Defendants interposed a counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff had damaged and vandalized their property, in addition to causing damage to their car. After a non-jury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,464 and dismissed defendants' counterclaim.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment, insofar as it awarded plaintiff the sum of $1,464 upon his cause of action, did not provide substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1807). A review of the record reveals that, with respect to plaintiff's cause of action, plaintiff is not the real party in interest, as the property that had allegedly been affected was owned by a corporation, not plaintiff (see 82 NY Jur 2d, Parties § 25). Consequently, plaintiff's cause of action must be dismissed. On the other hand, the City Court's dismissal of defendants' counterclaim, which appears to have been properly interposed against plaintiff, was supported by the record.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by providing that plaintiff's cause of action is dismissed.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Tolbert, JJ., concur. Decision Date: April 04, 2013

20130404

© 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.