From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buonomo v. Stalker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 19, 1972
40 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Summary

In Buonomo v Stalker (40 A.D.2d 733) this court noted that section 1804 required that procedurally the trial court "must be given wide latitude and discretion in the conduct of the proceedings".

Summary of this case from Blair v. Five Pts. Shopping Plaza

Opinion

October 19, 1972


Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County, entered May 9, 1972, which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of the City of Binghamton in favor of the plaintiff. The action was nominally brought in the name of respondent against the infant appellant and his parent to recover for medical bills and injuries sustained by respondent's infant son, Patrick, when he was struck on the nose by the infant appellant. The suit was tried as a small claims action without a jury and in accordance with the informal procedures provided for in such cases (UCCA, § 1804). Judgment for $300 was entered in favor of respondent against the infant appellant for her medical bills as well as for the pain and suffering sustained by the infant. Appellant contends that the cause of action for pain and suffering properly belonged to the infant, and since he was not a party to the instant action, he would still be lawfully entitled to bring a second action for pain and suffering within one year after attaining his majority (CPLR 208, 215). This would result in a double recovery against appellant. It was clearly understood by the parties that any recovery for pain and suffering should inure to the benefit of the infant. Furthermore, the Trial Judge stated in his decision that the action was brought on behalf of respondent's son. Section 1804 Uniform City Ct. Act of the Uniform City Court Act provides that the "court shall * * * do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law and shall not be bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence". This statute was designed to facilitate the handling of minor claims and grievances without requiring the parties to resort to the use of counsel. To effectuate the purposes of the law, the trial court must be given wide latitude and discretion in the conduct of the proceedings. We find no prejudice to appellant in the record. However, respondent is entitled to recover only her medical bills in the sum of $60.60. The case must therefore be remanded to the City Court of Binghamton for correction of the judgment to reflect the award to the infant plaintiff, Patrick Buonomo, for his pain and suffering. We have examined appellant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Order modified, on the law and the facts, and matter remitted to the City Court of the City of Binghamton for entry of a judgment in respondent's favor in the sum of $60.60, and a judgment in favor of her infant son, Patrick Buonomo, in the sum of $239.40, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J.P., Sweeney, Simons, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Buonomo v. Stalker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 19, 1972
40 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

In Buonomo v Stalker (40 A.D.2d 733) this court noted that section 1804 required that procedurally the trial court "must be given wide latitude and discretion in the conduct of the proceedings".

Summary of this case from Blair v. Five Pts. Shopping Plaza

In Buonomo v Stalker (40 A.D.2d 733), the Appellate Division, Third Department, in permitting a substitution of parties where there was no prejudice to the other side, referred to section 1804 stating: "This statute was designed to facilitate the handling of minor claims and grievances without requiring the parties to resort to the use of counsel.

Summary of this case from Bogart v. Imports of Wantagh

In Buonomo v Stalker (40 A.D.2d 733) the Appellate Division, Third Department, stated that: "Section 1804 * * * provides that the 'court shall * * * do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law and shall not be bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence'.

Summary of this case from Webster v. Farmer

In Buonomo v Stalker (40 A.D.2d 733) the court said: "This statute was designed to facilitate the handling of minor claims and grievances without requiring the parties to resort to the use of counsel.

Summary of this case from Lanni v. Clark Disposal
Case details for

Buonomo v. Stalker

Case Details

Full title:ROSE M. BUONOMO, Respondent, v. FOREST STALKER, as Father and Natural…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Oct 19, 1972

Citations

40 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

Woodson v. Frankart Kings

Since the lease is not "certain", the determination is not "shocking" and courts may reasonably differ. More…

Weiner v. Tel Aviv Car & Limousine Service, Ltd.

The analysis starts with the oft-repeated premise, that the small claims statutes were "designed to…