Maltz v. ALAC Contr. Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Maltz v. ALAC Contr. Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided August 17, 2017·No. 2017 NYSlipOp 51075(U)·Published

Opinion

Robert Maltz, Appellant,

against

ALAC Contracting Corp., Respondent.

Michael R. Freeda, Esq., for appellant. ALAC Contracting Corp., respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Darlene D. Harris, J.), entered February 5, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for defendant's allegedly improper construction of a roadway, which caused damage to plaintiff's car and the loss of rent. After a nonjury trial, 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, 126 [2000]).

Plaintiff's sole contention on appeal is that the District Court erred in allowing defendant's witness, Thomas Mahan, who informed the court that he was the superintendent of defendant corporation, to appear for defendant and testify on defendant's behalf, without first inquiring whether Mr. Mahon was authorized. As plaintiff did not raise this issue in the District Court, it is not preserved for appellate review (see Nash v Yablon-Nash, 61 AD3d 832 [2009]). In any [*2]event, we find that the District Court made a reasonable inquiry as to whether Mr. Mahan was authorized to appear on behalf of defendant in defense of this small claims action (see UDCA 1809 [2]).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination, as it provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 17, 2017

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

Robert Maltz, Appellant,

against

ALAC Contracting Corp., Respondent.

Michael R. Freeda, Esq., for appellant. ALAC Contracting Corp., respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Darlene D. Harris, J.), entered February 5, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for defendant's allegedly improper construction of a roadway, which caused damage to plaintiff's car and the loss of rent. After a nonjury trial, 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, 126 [2000]).

Plaintiff's sole contention on appeal is that the District Court erred in allowing defendant's witness, Thomas Mahan, who informed the court that he was the superintendent of defendant corporation, to appear for defendant and testify on defendant's behalf, without first inquiring whether Mr. Mahon was authorized. As plaintiff did not raise this issue in the District Court, it is not preserved for appellate review (see Nash v Yablon-Nash, 61 AD3d 832 [2009]). In any [*2]event, we find that the District Court made a reasonable inquiry as to whether Mr. Mahan was authorized to appear on behalf of defendant in defense of this small claims action (see UDCA 1809 [2]).

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination, as it provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 17, 2017

Maltz v. ALAC Contr. Corp., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Maltz v. ALAC Contr. Corp. (Maltz v. ALAC Contr. Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related