Opinion
No. 2014–625NC.
07-13-2015
Kristine WEINSTEIN, Respondent, v. SHY FOX FARM and Cathleen Graham, Appellants.
Opinion
Appeal from an amended judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Joy M. Watson, J.), entered December 18, 2013. The amended judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,246.78 as against defendant Shy Fox Farm.
ORDERED that so much of the appeal as was taken by defendant Cathleen Graham is dismissed, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the amended judgment insofar as appealed from (see CPLR 5511 ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the amended judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Shy Fox Farm, is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for the entry of a judgment dismissing so much of the action as is against defendant Shy Fox Farm.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $4,246.78 from Shy Fox Farm and its proprietor, Cathleen Graham, for the loss of a full tack trunk, which, plaintiff alleges, was stolen after it had been delivered to defendants. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court, in an amended judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,246.78 as against Shy Fox Farm (defendant), and dismissed the action as against Cathleen Graham.
In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether “substantial justice has ... been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UDCA 1807 ; see UDCA 1804 ; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [2000] ). Furthermore, although small claims courts are not bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence (see UDCA 1804 ), a small claims judgment may not be based on hearsay alone (see Zelnik v. Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., 242 A.D.2d 227, 228 [1997] ; Levins v. Bucholtz, 2 A.D.2d 351 [1956] ). As the evidence proffered by plaintiff to support her contention that defendant was liable for the loss of the tack trunk was based solely on hearsay, plaintiff did not establish a basis for imposing liability on defendant. Consequently, the amended judgment failed to render substantial justice between plaintiff and defendant (see UDCA 1804, 1807 ).
Accordingly, the amended judgment, insofar as appealed from by defendant Shy Fox Farm, is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for the entry of a judgment dismissing so much of the action as is against defendant Shy Fox Farm.
TOLBERT, J.P., MARANO and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.