Kotarba v. Bobrow

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kotarba v. Bobrow

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51952(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Kotarba v. Bobrow (Kotarba v. Bobrow) 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

Kotarba v. Bobrow, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Artur Kotarba, Respondent,

against

Andrea Bobrow, Appellant.

Reingold & Tucker (Abraham Reingold of counsel), for appellant. Artur Kotarba, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Cenceria P. Edwards, J.), entered April 25, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the complaint is dismissed.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $25,000, representing the value of his personal property that was not returned to him after he had been evicted from an apartment which was owned by defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that defendant did not return his "video equipment" after defendant had evicted him from his apartment. When the court asked defendant, "[w]hat was the dollar value of your video equipment," defendant replied, "[o]ver $20,000." The Civil Court, without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000.

Here, there was no competent proof establishing specifically the items that defendant had not returned, as plaintiff described them only as "video equipment." Additionally, there was no evidence adduced at trial establishing the value of plaintiff's used property. "To establish damages for the loss of personal property, there must be some testimony as to the property's value by the owner or someone familiar with the property's quality and condition such as its original cost, age and condition at the time of the loss" (Charles v Boland, 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51524[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] [internal [*2]quotation marks and citations omitted]). Consequently, there was no basis for the Civil Court to award plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the complaint is dismissed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 29, 2019

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

Artur Kotarba, Respondent,

against

Andrea Bobrow, Appellant.

Reingold & Tucker (Abraham Reingold of counsel), for appellant. Artur Kotarba, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Cenceria P. Edwards, J.), entered April 25, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the complaint is dismissed.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $25,000, representing the value of his personal property that was not returned to him after he had been evicted from an apartment which was owned by defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that defendant did not return his "video equipment" after defendant had evicted him from his apartment. When the court asked defendant, "[w]hat was the dollar value of your video equipment," defendant replied, "[o]ver $20,000." The Civil Court, without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000.

Here, there was no competent proof establishing specifically the items that defendant had not returned, as plaintiff described them only as "video equipment." Additionally, there was no evidence adduced at trial establishing the value of plaintiff's used property. "To establish damages for the loss of personal property, there must be some testimony as to the property's value by the owner or someone familiar with the property's quality and condition such as its original cost, age and condition at the time of the loss" (Charles v Boland, 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51524[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] [internal [*2]quotation marks and citations omitted]). Consequently, there was no basis for the Civil Court to award plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the complaint is dismissed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 29, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kotarba v. Bobrow, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kotarba-v-bobrow-nyappterm-2019.