Sten v. Desrocher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sten v. Desrocher

8 A.D.3d 915, 778 N.Y.S.2d 727, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 915 (Sten v. Desrocher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sten v. Desrocher, 8 A.D.3d 915, 778 N.Y.S.2d 727, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), entered February 20, 2003, which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of the City of Plattsburgh in favor of defendants.

Plaintiff appeals to this Court (see CPLR 5703 [b]) from County Court’s affirmance (see UJCA 1701, 1807) of a City Court judgment dismissing his small claims action in which he sought compensation for damage to his car sustained in a motor vehicle accident. “The standard of review in small claims cases is limited to whether ‘substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law’ ” (Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707 [1997], quoting UJCA 1807; see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985]; Borman v Purvis, 299 AD2d 615, 616 [2002]). Here, City Court heard testimony from plaintiff, defendant Todd Desrocher (hereinafter defendant) and a State Trooper who investigated the accident. There was evidence indicating that defendant was operating his vehicle in a reasonably prudent fashion and City Court credited that proof. City Court’s determination that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving any negligence by defendant was not clearly erroneous or “so shocking as to not be substantial justice” (Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167, 169 [1976]). The remaining arguments have been considered and found meritless.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), entered February 20, 2003, which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of the City of Plattsburgh in favor of defendants.

Plaintiff appeals to this Court (see CPLR 5703 [b]) from County Court’s affirmance (see UJCA 1701, 1807) of a City Court judgment dismissing his small claims action in which he sought compensation for damage to his car sustained in a motor vehicle accident. “The standard of review in small claims cases is limited to whether ‘substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law’ ” (Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707 [1997], quoting UJCA 1807; see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985]; Borman v Purvis, 299 AD2d 615, 616 [2002]). Here, City Court heard testimony from plaintiff, defendant Todd Desrocher (hereinafter defendant) and a State Trooper who investigated the accident. There was evidence indicating that defendant was operating his vehicle in a reasonably prudent fashion and City Court credited that proof. City Court’s determination that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving any negligence by defendant was not clearly erroneous or “so shocking as to not be substantial justice” (Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167, 169 [1976]). The remaining arguments have been considered and found meritless.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 915, 778 N.Y.S.2d 727, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sten-v-desrocher-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack