From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorgho v. Autozone 2962

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
Sep 30, 2019
65 Misc. 3d 129 (N.Y. App. Term 2019)

Opinion

570286/19

09-30-2019

Jean SORGHO, v. AUTOZONE 2962, Defendant-Respondent.


Per Curiam.

Judgment (Brenda Rivera, J.), entered on or about February 13, 2019, reversed, without costs, and new trial ordered.

Plaintiff instituted this small claims action based on allegations that defendant negligently installed a battery in plaintiff's vehicle resulting in damage to the electrical system. At trial, defendant's witness denied that its employee installed the battery and testified that plaintiff performed the installation. The trial presented a pure credibility contest based on conflicting testimony which, due to the court's failure to issue a written decision in conformity with CPLR 4213(b), went unaddressed below. In this posture, and given that the documentary evidence shown to the trial court was not marked as exhibits or introduced into evidence and is thus absent from the record on appeal, we are constrained to order a new trial.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


Summaries of

Sorgho v. Autozone 2962

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
Sep 30, 2019
65 Misc. 3d 129 (N.Y. App. Term 2019)
Case details for

Sorgho v. Autozone 2962

Case Details

Full title:Jean Sorgho, v. Autozone 2962, Defendant-Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Date published: Sep 30, 2019

Citations

65 Misc. 3d 129 (N.Y. App. Term 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 51540
118 N.Y.S.3d 363