Dentici v. South Shore Hyundai

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Dentici v. South Shore Hyundai

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedAugust 15, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51353(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Dentici v. South Shore Hyundai (Dentici v. South Shore Hyundai) 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

Dentici v. South Shore Hyundai, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Joseph Carl Dentici, Appellant,

against

South Shore Hyundai, Respondent.

Joseph Carl Dentici, appellant pro se. South Shore Hyundai, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Maxine Sonya Broderick, J.), entered August 9, 2018. The judgment, after an inquest, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $467.99, representing the money he had allegedly paid as an early termination fee for a lease on a vehicle. Defendant failed to appear for trial. At an inquest, plaintiff testified that defendant's employee had called him and told him that defendant wanted plaintiff's 2014 Hyundai Sonata leased car because it had such low mileage and that if he were to terminate the lease early, the termination fee would be waived. Plaintiff submitted the final bill from Hyundai Finance, which showed a balance due of $467.99, which was the difference between the adjusted capital cost and the realized value, less advanced lease payments. The amount listed on the form, next to the line which read Early Termination Fee, was $0. Following the inquest, the District Court dismissed the action.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing that he was charged an early termination fee. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the action, after an inquest, provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 15, 2019

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

Joseph Carl Dentici, Appellant,

against

South Shore Hyundai, Respondent.

Joseph Carl Dentici, appellant pro se. South Shore Hyundai, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Maxine Sonya Broderick, J.), entered August 9, 2018. The judgment, after an inquest, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $467.99, representing the money he had allegedly paid as an early termination fee for a lease on a vehicle. Defendant failed to appear for trial. At an inquest, plaintiff testified that defendant's employee had called him and told him that defendant wanted plaintiff's 2014 Hyundai Sonata leased car because it had such low mileage and that if he were to terminate the lease early, the termination fee would be waived. Plaintiff submitted the final bill from Hyundai Finance, which showed a balance due of $467.99, which was the difference between the adjusted capital cost and the realized value, less advanced lease payments. The amount listed on the form, next to the line which read Early Termination Fee, was $0. Following the inquest, the District Court dismissed the action.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing that he was charged an early termination fee. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the action, after an inquest, provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 15, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dentici v. South Shore Hyundai, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dentici-v-south-shore-hyundai-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack