Urgo v. Jamaica Savings Bank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Urgo v. Jamaica Savings Bank

150 Misc. 2d 983, 578 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 758

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 18, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 Misc. 2d 983 (Urgo v. Jamaica Savings Bank) 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

Urgo v. Jamaica Savings Bank, 150 Misc. 2d 983, 578 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action to recover $466, which she claimed she lost as a result of the defendant’s [984]*984negligence. It was plaintiffs contention that the money was removed from her handbag while she was in defendant’s bank. The court dismissed the action and plaintiff has appealed, claiming that the actions of the court deprived her of substantial justice, that the bank was negligent and that the negligence was the proximate cause of her loss.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, a review of the record discloses that the court below did attempt to elicit the essential facts. As to plaintiffs claim that the court refused to permit cross-examination of defendant, it is sufficient to note that no witnesses testified on behalf of defendant.

Although the court did not permit plaintiffs son-in-law to represent her, we find no error since plaintiffs son-in-law is not an attorney. We cannot agree with the conclusion in Newsome v Potter (128 Misc 2d 779) that representation by a nonattorney is permissible in a small claims action. If that were the case, it would have been unnecessary to add section 1815 to the CCA, UDCA, UCCA and UJCA permitting representation by a nonattorney in certain instances (L 1990, ch 88). Inasmuch as the trial took place over a year before the effective date of section 1815, the court below did not err in refusing to permit plaintiffs son-in-law to represent her.

We are also of the opinion that the court properly dismissed the action since plaintiff failed to prove how her loss was occasioned, and her claim that she was pickpocketed is not supported by the evidence.

Monteleone, J. R, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action to recover $466, which she claimed she lost as a result of the defendant’s [984]*984negligence. It was plaintiffs contention that the money was removed from her handbag while she was in defendant’s bank. The court dismissed the action and plaintiff has appealed, claiming that the actions of the court deprived her of substantial justice, that the bank was negligent and that the negligence was the proximate cause of her loss.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, a review of the record discloses that the court below did attempt to elicit the essential facts. As to plaintiffs claim that the court refused to permit cross-examination of defendant, it is sufficient to note that no witnesses testified on behalf of defendant.

Although the court did not permit plaintiffs son-in-law to represent her, we find no error since plaintiffs son-in-law is not an attorney. We cannot agree with the conclusion in Newsome v Potter (128 Misc 2d 779) that representation by a nonattorney is permissible in a small claims action. If that were the case, it would have been unnecessary to add section 1815 to the CCA, UDCA, UCCA and UJCA permitting representation by a nonattorney in certain instances (L 1990, ch 88). Inasmuch as the trial took place over a year before the effective date of section 1815, the court below did not err in refusing to permit plaintiffs son-in-law to represent her.

We are also of the opinion that the court properly dismissed the action since plaintiff failed to prove how her loss was occasioned, and her claim that she was pickpocketed is not supported by the evidence.

Monteleone, J. R, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 Misc. 2d 983, 578 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urgo-v-jamaica-savings-bank-nyappterm-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack