Margolis v. Malhotra

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: June 22, 2017
• Docket: 2017 NYSlipOp 50850(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

Amy Beth Margolis, Appellant,

against

Sheila Malhotra and Nite-N-Gail/Darshi, Respondents.

Amy Beth Margolis, appellant pro se, submitted. Sheila Malhotra and Nite-N-Gail/Darshi, respondents pro se, (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Scott H. Siller, J.), entered November 7, 2014. 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 principal sum of $5,000, alleging a breach of contract. 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]). Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff failed to prove the extent of her damages. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the action rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

We note that we do not consider any materials that are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 22, 2017