Kataev v. Royal Luxury Limo, LLC

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMay 24, 2018
Docket2018 NYSlipOp 50760(U)
StatusPublished

This text of Kataev v. Royal Luxury Limo, LLC (Kataev v. Royal Luxury Limo, LLC) 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
Kataev v. Royal Luxury Limo, LLC, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion



Emanuel Kataev, Appellant,

against

Royal Luxury Limo, LLC, Respondent.


Gajjar Law Firm, P.C. (Ripal J. Gajjar of counsel), for appellant. Royal Luxury Limo, LLC, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Joseph B. Girardi, J.), entered January 4, 2017. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after an inquest, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $51.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $101, alleging that he was entitled to a refund of that sum for time not used under a limousine rental contract that he had entered into with defendant. A default judgment, entered following an inquest, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $51. As limited by his brief, plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of the judgment as awarded him only $51.

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, 126 [2000]).

As plaintiff failed to submit the limousine contract at issue, he failed to establish that he had a right thereunder to a refund. Consequently, substantial justice (see UDCA 1804; 1807) does not require that the award to plaintiff be increased. We note that plaintiff did not establish the elements of a cause of action to recover under a deceptive trade practices claim (see General Business Law § 349).

While we find no support for the award to plaintiff in the sum of $51, in light of the fact that defendant did not cross-appeal, we affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from.

BRANDS, J.P., MARANO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.



ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 24, 2018

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

Related

Williams v. Roper
269 A.D.2d 125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Ross v. Friedman
269 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kataev v. Royal Luxury Limo, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kataev-v-royal-luxury-limo-llc-nyappterm-2018.