Opinion
2013-218 S C
01-15-2015
Nastaran Saber and KAMAL EBRAHIMI, Respondents, - v. Dina G. Byrne, Appellant.
PRESENT: : , MARANO and GARGUILO, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (David A. Morris, J.), entered July 12, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of sum of $1,500 and dismissed defendant s counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs commenced this small claims breach of contract action to recover the sum of $1,500, which they had paid to defendant for architectural design plans. Defendant interposed a counterclaim to recover the sum of $1,500 for services rendered. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,500 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.
Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). The parties entered into a written contract in May 2011, whereby plaintiffs agreed to pay defendant $3,000 for design plans for the renovation of their house. The contract provided, among other things, that (1) a payment of $1,500 was due "at proposal's acceptance," (2) "[u]pon finalizing the revision the homeowner will be asked to sign the revised plan, authorizing it as the final design," and (3) the $1,500 balance was "[d]ue upon authorization of final design." Plaintiffs paid defendant the initial $1,500, and defendant provided them with preliminary design plans. It is uncontroverted that plaintiffs told defendant to "finalize the plans," but defendant never provided plaintiffs with the final design plans. Indeed, in defendant's December 2011 email to plaintiff Nastaran Saber, defendant stated that she had last spoken to Saber at the end of June when Saber had "instructed me to finalize the plans," and defendant apologized "for the time that had passed" and explained why she had not provided the final plans to plaintiffs. Since plaintiffs did not receive any final plans that they could sign or authorize, they were not required to give the additional $1,500 to defendant, which was only "[d]ue upon authorization of the final design." Therefore, contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiffs did not breach the contract; rather, defendant did. Consequently, the District Court properly determined that defendant is not entitled to recover on her counterclaim and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover their $1,500 down payment.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 15, 2015