Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v. Goldstein

56 A.D.2d 1179, 866 N.Y.S.2d 889

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 14, 2008·Published

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), entered April 3, 2007. The order affirmed a judgment of the Rochester City Court (Teresa D. Johnson, J.), dated September 21, 2006 in favor of plaintiff in a small claims action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order affirming City Court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff in this small claims action. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that “substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law,” and thus we affirm (UJCA 1807; see generally Sten v Desrocher, 8 AD3d 915 [2004]; Coppola v Kandey Co., 236 AD2d 871 [1997]). Present — Martoche, J.P, Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), entered April 3, 2007. The order affirmed a judgment of the Rochester City Court (Teresa D. Johnson, J.), dated September 21, 2006 in favor of plaintiff in a small claims action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order affirming City Court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff in this small claims action. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that “substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law,” and thus we affirm (UJCA 1807; see generally Sten v Desrocher, 8 AD3d 915 [2004]; Coppola v Kandey Co., 236 AD2d 871 [1997]). Present — Martoche, J.P, Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v. Goldstein, 56 A.D.2d 1179, 866 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

56 A.D.2d 1179 (Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v. Goldstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related