Ingram v. E & D Parking Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ingram v. E & D Parking Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided January 15, 2020·No. 2020 NYSlipOp 50029(U)·Published

Opinion

Nathan Ingram, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

E & D Parking Corp., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about November 14, 2018, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding him damages in the principal sum of $5,000.00.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about November 14, 2018, modified, by reducing plaintiff's recovery to the principal sum of $3,216.40, as modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

The trial court applied the appropriate rules of substantive law and accomplished "substantial justice" (CCA 1804, 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]) in resolving the liability aspect of this small claims action in plaintiff's favor, since the record supports the court's credibility-based determination that defendant wrongfully asserted a lien against plaintiff's vehicle in a sum greater then the amount actually due under the parties' monthly parking fee agreement (see Matter of BMW Bank of N. Am. v G & B Collision Ctr., Inc., 46 AD3d 875 [2007]; F & N Corvette & Classics v Corvette Repairs, 206 AD2d 349, 350 [1994]; Phillips v Catania, 155 AD2d 866 [1989]). However, the record and the ends of substantial justice support a total award of no more than $3,216.40. Any additional damage award, based upon the claim that the vehicle was damaged by defendant, is not sustainable inasmuch as plaintiff failed to present "an itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates for ... repairs" for the alleged damage to his vehicle (CCA 1804; see Jesurun v AD Parking Inc., 53 Misc 3d 132[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51387[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2016]) and failed to provide any proof of the quality or condition of the personal property alleged to have been taken while the vehicle was in defendant's custody (see White v Communilife Scattered Site, 59 Misc 3d 139[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50582[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 15, 2020

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

Nathan Ingram, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

E & D Parking Corp., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about November 14, 2018, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding him damages in the principal sum of $5,000.00.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about November 14, 2018, modified, by reducing plaintiff's recovery to the principal sum of $3,216.40, as modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

The trial court applied the appropriate rules of substantive law and accomplished "substantial justice" (CCA 1804, 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]) in resolving the liability aspect of this small claims action in plaintiff's favor, since the record supports the court's credibility-based determination that defendant wrongfully asserted a lien against plaintiff's vehicle in a sum greater then the amount actually due under the parties' monthly parking fee agreement (see Matter of BMW Bank of N. Am. v G & B Collision Ctr., Inc., 46 AD3d 875 [2007]; F & N Corvette & Classics v Corvette Repairs, 206 AD2d 349, 350 [1994]; Phillips v Catania, 155 AD2d 866 [1989]). However, the record and the ends of substantial justice support a total award of no more than $3,216.40. Any additional damage award, based upon the claim that the vehicle was damaged by defendant, is not sustainable inasmuch as plaintiff failed to present "an itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates for ... repairs" for the alleged damage to his vehicle (CCA 1804; see Jesurun v AD Parking Inc., 53 Misc 3d 132[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51387[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2016]) and failed to provide any proof of the quality or condition of the personal property alleged to have been taken while the vehicle was in defendant's custody (see White v Communilife Scattered Site, 59 Misc 3d 139[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50582[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 15, 2020

Ingram v. E & D Parking Corp., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Ingram v. E & D Parking Corp. (Ingram v. E & D Parking Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related