Bota v. Mullikin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bota v. Mullikin

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 21, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50245(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Bota v. Mullikin (Bota v. Mullikin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bota v. Mullikin, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Victor Cesar Bota, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

David Mullikin, Mullikin's Corvette Specialist, Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff, as limited by his briefs, appeals from that portion of a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), entered February 8, 2019, after trial, which limited his recovery of damages to the principal sum of $5,120.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), entered February 8, 2019, affirmed, without costs.

The amount of the damage award issued in plaintiff's favor was supported by the trial evidence and was neither inadequate nor unreasonable. Plaintiff's damages were properly limited, since he failed to establish the market value of his 1980 model year vehicle immediately before it was given to defendants-mechanics (see Schwartz v Crozier, 169 AD2d 1003 [1991]). The limited evidence presented by plaintiff regarding similar makes and models was properly rejected, given plaintiff's substantial modifications of the vehicle, including the removal of the roof, which significantly reduced its value.

We note that defendant offered to return the vehicle, but plaintiff refused the offer.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 21, 2020

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Victor Cesar Bota, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

David Mullikin, Mullikin's Corvette Specialist, Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff, as limited by his briefs, appeals from that portion of a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), entered February 8, 2019, after trial, which limited his recovery of damages to the principal sum of $5,120.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), entered February 8, 2019, affirmed, without costs.

The amount of the damage award issued in plaintiff's favor was supported by the trial evidence and was neither inadequate nor unreasonable. Plaintiff's damages were properly limited, since he failed to establish the market value of his 1980 model year vehicle immediately before it was given to defendants-mechanics (see Schwartz v Crozier, 169 AD2d 1003 [1991]). The limited evidence presented by plaintiff regarding similar makes and models was properly rejected, given plaintiff's substantial modifications of the vehicle, including the removal of the roof, which significantly reduced its value.

We note that defendant offered to return the vehicle, but plaintiff refused the offer.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 21, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bota v. Mullikin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bota-v-mullikin-nyappterm-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack