From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kirschner v. Viala

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Dec 21, 2012
38 Misc. 3d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

No. 2011–1848NC.

2012-12-21

Sannie KIRSCHNER, Respondent, v. Robert VIALA and Lucy Viala, Appellants.


Present: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and LaSALLE, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Tricia M. Ferrell, J.), entered June 10, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,825.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

In this small claims action to recover the sum of $4,814.22, defendants appeal from a judgment of the District Court which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,825.

CPLR 4213(b) directs that the decision of a trial court must set forth “the facts it deems essential” ( see e.g. Weckstein v. Breitbart, 111 A.D.2d 6 [1985];Manu v. Gerard Ct. Assoc., LLC, 37 Misc.3d 132[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 52007[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012] ). Here, the District Court failed to make any specific findings of fact with regard to the claim asserted by plaintiff, and it cannot be determined how the court arrived at an award in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,825. Under the circumstances, the judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered.

NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kirschner v. Viala

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Dec 21, 2012
38 Misc. 3d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Kirschner v. Viala

Case Details

Full title:Sannie KIRSCHNER, Respondent, v. Robert VIALA and Lucy Viala, Appellants.

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Dec 21, 2012

Citations

38 Misc. 3d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 52413
966 N.Y.S.2d 346

Citing Cases

Kolchin v. Bay Ridge Nissan, Inc.

CPLR 4213 (b) directs that the decision of a trial court must set forth "the facts it deems essential" (see…

Kolchin v. Bay Ridge Nissan, Inc.

CPLR 4213 (b) directs that the decision of a trial court must set forth "the facts it deems essential" (see…