Opinion
No. 2023-50153
02-01-2023
Rodolfo Zanetti, Claimant, v. Best Buy 1448 and BEST BUY CO. INC., Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
Kim M. Parker, J.
In this small claim action, the court held a trial on January 18, 2023. Claimant returned an Apple Mac Book and exchanged it for a Hewlett Packard (HP) laptop. However, he alleges that he was charged twice for the HP. Claimant brings this action for damages for the cost of the second HP, and the accrued interest on his best buy credit card. He previously rejected defendant's offer to settle the matter for $1905.35, the cost of the computer, because it did not cover the interest accrued on the credit card. Claimant provided a receipt dated September 18, 2020 at 17:11 (the exchange), investigation letters sent by Best Buy and credit card account statements as evidence.
At trial, claimant testified with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter. He testified that on September 10, 2020 he purchased an Apple Mac Book online for $1,360.93. However, he returned it in-store on September 18 because it did not meet his needs. He sought to exchange the Apple for a HP priced at $1,905.35. After the tax, $250 discount and price difference were applied, claimant expected to pay $574.36 exchange fee. However, his October Best Buy credit card statement showed the exchange price of $574.36 and another charge of $1905.30 for a second HP computer that claimant asserts he did not purchase.
Mr. Jorge Alvarez, a store manager, testified on defendant's behalf. He testified that the receipts show that claimant purchased a HP at 17:00 (5pm) on September 18 for $1,905.30. A second receipt for the same day shows at 17:11 (5:11pm), claimant exchanged his Apple Mac Book for another HP. As a result, claimant purchased two HP computers that day, eleven minutes apart. Defendant provided receipts dated September 18, 2020 at 17:00 and receipt for 17:11 (the exchange), emails with Citibank, order form and return policy as exhibits.
During trial, Mr. Alvarez stated that defendant's name was incorrect. Best Buy No.1448 is the store number. However, defendant's legal name is Best Buy Co. Inc.
Wide latitude is given to all litigants before the Small Claims Court and small claims' cases are informal and simplified procedures in which the court seeks to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law. See NYCCCA § 1804. In this case, defendant's receipt taken at 17:00 (5:00pm) reads a HP with Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) #6406696 was purchased. Defendant's receipt taken at 17:11 (5:11pm) (the exchange) shows that claimant returned his Apple Mac Book in exchange for HP with SKU #6406696, the same SKU number registered just eleven minutes earlier. Therefore, claimant was charged twice for the HP having the same SKU number #6406696. In addition, claimant's 2020 credit card statement reads in part that the credit card interest was deferred unless the bill was paid in full by October 9, 2022. Claimant did not pay the bill by the date due because he disputed the charge. As a result, his 2022 Totals Year-to-Date credit card statement shows the total interest charged was $999.76.
This Court finds that claimant was charged twice for the HP computer having the same SKU #6406696, eleven minutes apart. He was also charged with accrued interest in 2022 for the unpaid credit card bill for a computer he did not purchase. Therefore, claimant is entitled to be reimbursed for the HP and the accrued interest.
In addition, the Court recognizes that Best Buy 1448 is not defendant's legal name. The Court in a small claim action has the authority to correct a faulty designation of a party defendant, even after rendition of a judgement, to reflect the defendant's proper name, so as to assist a prevailing plaintiff in enforcing the judgement. See Goldstein v Uncle Sam's NY LLC 976 N.Y.S.2d 753 (2013). "The standard, once again, should be whether there is anything at all about the way the defendant has referred to itself in conducting its business which could reasonably have led the claimant to name the defendant as it was in fact named in the initial Small Claims papers." McKinney's NY City Civ. Ct. Act § 1814. In this case, 1448 represents the store number where the transactions occurred therefore claimant reasonably named defendant as Best Buy 1448. However, the Court will amend defendant's name to reflect its legal name Best Buy Co. Inc.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERD that claimant is awarded $2,500.00, with costs and interest as of September 18, 2020.
This constitutes the decision, verdict, and order of the Court.