Opinion
2007-1824 S C.
Decided on January 8, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County (Richard A. Ehlers, J.), entered May 9, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $1,231 for defendants' alleged failure to properly repair plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff testified that his vehicle was inoperable and was towed to defendants' shop for repairs. Defendants performed certain repairs, returned the vehicle to plaintiff and advised plaintiff that certain additional repairs might be necessary if the problems did not resolve themselves through further use of the vehicle. When the problems still persisted, plaintiff went to another repair shop to perform those additional repairs. After a nonjury trial, the court found in favor of defendants dismissing the action on the ground that plaintiff should have brought his vehicle back to defendants for further repairs if plaintiff was dissatisfied with defendants' work. Upon a review of the record, we find no basis in the record for the Justice Court to have penalized plaintiff for not returning the vehicle to defendants for further repairs. Nevertheless, we affirm the judgment on a ground different than the one relied upon by the Justice Court.
The record shows that defendants diagnosed two separate and distinct problems with plaintiff's vehicle and advised plaintiff accordingly. Defendants fully repaired the first problem and were properly paid the sum of $1,231 therefor. Plaintiff was advised that the second problem could possibly cure itself without the need of further costly repair. When the problem did not resolve itself, rather than return the vehicle to defendants, plaintiff decided to take his vehicle to a different repair shop for further repair. Such fact does not constitute a basis for any recovery against defendants in the absence of proof that the work done by defendants in repairing the first problem was unnecessary or defective. Accordingly, in dismissing the action, the court below provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126).
Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.