Palmer v. GoGo Furniture

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. GoGo Furniture

85 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2025 NY Slip Op 50560(U)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 21, 2025

Docket570121/25

StatusUnpublished

This text of 85 Misc. 3d 139(A) (Palmer v. GoGo Furniture) 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

Palmer v. GoGo Furniture, 85 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2025 NY Slip Op 50560(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Palmer v GoGo Furniture (2025 NY Slip Op 50560(U))

[*1]

Palmer v GoGo Furniture

2025 NY Slip Op 50560(U) [85 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on April 21, 2025

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 21, 2025

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.

570121/25

Tyisha C. Palmer, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

GoGo Furniture, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erik L. Gray, J.), entered March 7, 2023, after inquest, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Erik L. Gray, J.), entered March 7, 2023, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for a new inquest.

The trial court properly resolved the liability aspect of plaintiff's defective furniture claim in her favor, but dismissed the action for failure to prove actual damages sustained (see CCA 1804; Paulson v Kotsilimbas, 124 AD2d 513, 514 [1986]). Although the trial court was correct in finding that it could not ascertain the value of the defective bed because the purchase receipt submitted by the pro se plaintiff only listed the total price of the bedroom set and did not separately itemize the cost of the bed, the ends of "substantial justice" (CAA 1807) would be better served by affording the plaintiff a final opportunity to demonstrate the value of the bed (see Gamboa v 245 PAS Prop. LLC, 42 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52214[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; Correa v Midtown Moving, 4 Misc 3d 135[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50798[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2004]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 21, 2025

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

Palmer v GoGo Furniture (2025 NY Slip Op 50560(U))

[*1]

Palmer v GoGo Furniture

2025 NY Slip Op 50560(U) [85 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on April 21, 2025

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 21, 2025

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.

570121/25

Tyisha C. Palmer, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

GoGo Furniture, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erik L. Gray, J.), entered March 7, 2023, after inquest, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Erik L. Gray, J.), entered March 7, 2023, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for a new inquest.

The trial court properly resolved the liability aspect of plaintiff's defective furniture claim in her favor, but dismissed the action for failure to prove actual damages sustained (see CCA 1804; Paulson v Kotsilimbas, 124 AD2d 513, 514 [1986]). Although the trial court was correct in finding that it could not ascertain the value of the defective bed because the purchase receipt submitted by the pro se plaintiff only listed the total price of the bedroom set and did not separately itemize the cost of the bed, the ends of "substantial justice" (CAA 1807) would be better served by affording the plaintiff a final opportunity to demonstrate the value of the bed (see Gamboa v 245 PAS Prop. LLC, 42 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52214[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; Correa v Midtown Moving, 4 Misc 3d 135[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50798[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2004]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 21, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2025 NY Slip Op 50560(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-gogo-furniture-nyappterm-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack