Opinion
2018-997 RO C
12-13-2018
David HAMILL and Donna Hamill, Appellants, v. GREAT EXPRESSIONS DENTAL, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Symeco, Respondents.
David Hamill and Donna Hamill, appellants pro se. Great Expressions Dental, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Symeco, respondents pro se (no brief filed).
David Hamill and Donna Hamill, appellants pro se.
Great Expressions Dental, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Symeco, respondents pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT: : BRUCE E. TOLBERT, J.P., JAMES V. BRANDS, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,000 based on, among other things, defendants' having furnished a defective bridge that had been cemented into plaintiff Donna Hamill's mouth. Following a nonjury trial, at which Donna Hamill did not testify, the Justice Court dismissed the action.
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" ( UJCA 1807 ; see UJCA 1804 ; Ross v. Friedman , 269 AD2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper , 269 AD2d 125 [2000] ). Although small claims courts are not bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence (see UJCA 1804 ), a small claims judgment may not be based on hearsay alone (see Zelnik v. Bidermann Indus. U.S.A. , 242 AD2d 227 [1997] ; Levins v. Bucholtz , 2 AD2d 351 [1956] ). At the trial, David Hamill was the sole witness on behalf of plaintiffs. As plaintiffs failed to submit any expert testimony, which is required in a dental malpractice action (see Blum v. Yuabov , 12 Misc 3d 139[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51333[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006] ), to support their contention that defendants provided a bridge that did not fit Donna Hamill properly, plaintiffs failed to establish defendants' liability.
In view of the foregoing, the judgment dismissing the action rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UJCA 1804, 1807 ).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
TOLBERT, J.P., BRANDS and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.