Adams v. Dholichand

71 Misc. 3d 131(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50302(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: April 9, 2021
• Docket: 2019-1734 Q C
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Adams v Dholichand (2021 NY Slip Op 50302(U)) [*1]

Adams v Dholichand

2021 NY Slip Op 50302(U) [71 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on April 9, 2021

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 9, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2019-1734 Q C

Michael Adams, Respondent,

against

Surin Dholichand and Automotive Solutions, Inc., Appellants.

Randall B. Smith, P.C. (Randall B. Smith of counsel), for appellants. Michael Adams, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Phillip Hom, J.), entered June 18, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,522.32.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment dismissing the action.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,522.32 representing additional premiums plaintiff was charged by his automobile insurance carrier, allegedly due to a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of defendant Surin Dholichand, the president of defendant Automotive Solutions, Inc., when he test-drove plaintiff's vehicle. Following a nonjury trial, the court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,522.32.

Appellate review of a small claims judgment is limited to determining whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584, 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, although small claims courts are not bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence (see CCA 1804), a small claims judgment may not be based on hearsay alone (see Zelnik v Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., 242 AD2d 227, 228 [1997]; Levins v Bucholtz, 2 AD2d 351, 351-352 [1956]; Hudson House LLC v Pointdujour, 5 Misc 3d 136[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51547[U] [App Term, [*2]2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). As the evidence proffered by plaintiff in support of his contention that defendants were liable for the increased premiums was based solely on hearsay, plaintiff failed to establish a basis for imposing liability on defendants (see Osipova v Koss & Schonfeld, 69 Misc 3d 136[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51297[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Weinstein v Shy Fox Farm, 48 Misc 3d 133[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51071[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, the judgment failed to render substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment dismissing the action.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 9, 2021