From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sukkar v. Ramirez

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9 and 10 Judicial Dist.
Apr 20, 2017
58 N.Y.S.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

No. 2015–2813 W C.

04-20-2017

Norman SUKKAR, Appellant, v. Salvador RAMIREZ, Respondent.

Salvador Ramirez, respondent pro se (no brief filed).


Salvador Ramirez, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Present: BRUCE E. TOLBERT, J.P., JERRY GARGUILO, JAMES V. BRANDS, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Christie L. Derrico, J.), entered November 14, 2014. The judgment, after an inquest, dismissed the action without prejudice.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the City Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $5,000.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $5,000 for breach of contract based upon defendant's allegedly defective installation of a roof. Defendant did not appear for trial. After an inquest, the City Court dismissed the action without prejudice.

In our view, the judgment did not provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807 ; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000] ).

Plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount by which his payments exceeded the contract price (see Fredlund v. DeRosa, 309 A.D.2d 1287 [2003] ; 36 N.Y. Jur 2d, Damages § 52 ). The contract price was $4,500, and plaintiff demonstrated that he had paid a second contractor the sum of $6,700 to correct defendant's defective work. Plaintiff established that the total amount which he had paid to both defendant and the second contractor exceeded the $4,500 contract price by an amount in excess of $5,000, the jurisdictional limit of the Small Claims Part of the court (see Jackson v. Douglas, 22 Misc.3d 134 [A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 50235[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009] ).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the City Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $5,000, the jurisdictional limit of the court.

TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sukkar v. Ramirez

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9 and 10 Judicial Dist.
Apr 20, 2017
58 N.Y.S.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Sukkar v. Ramirez

Case Details

Full title:Norman SUKKAR, Appellant, v. Salvador RAMIREZ, Respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9 and 10 Judicial Dist.

Date published: Apr 20, 2017

Citations

58 N.Y.S.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)