Schoonover v. Gardner

265 A.D.2d 831, 696 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9878

Opinion

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Because the record does not establish plaintiffs consent, the appeal cannot be perfected on a “statement in lieu of stenographic transcript” (see, CPLR 5527;

[832]*832City of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v Rochester Stor. Warehouse, 142 AD2d 957). Were the appeal properly before us, we would conclude that substantial justice was done in this small claims action (see, Coppola v Kandey Co., 236 AD2d 871). We reject the contention that expert testimony was necessary to sustain plaintiffs claim (see, UJCA 1804; Siegel, NY Prac § 582, at 918 [2d ed]). (Appeal from Order of Yates County Court, Falvey, J. — Notice of Claim.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

Schoonover v. Gardner, 265 A.D.2d 831, 696 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

265 A.D.2d 831 (Schoonover v. Gardner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v. Rochester Storage Warehouse
142 A.D.2d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Coppola v. Kandey Co.
236 A.D.2d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)