Opinion
2018-90 K C
11-29-2019
Artur KOTARBA, Respondent, v. Andrea BOBROW, Appellant.
Reingold & Tucker (Abraham Reingold of counsel), for appellant. Artur Kotarba, respondent pro se.
Reingold & Tucker (Abraham Reingold of counsel), for appellant.
Artur Kotarba, respondent pro se.
PRESENT: MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the complaint is dismissed.
In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $25,000, representing the value of his personal property that was not returned to him after he had been evicted from an apartment which was owned by defendant. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that defendant did not return his "video equipment" after defendant had evicted him from his apartment. When the court asked defendant, "[w]hat was the dollar value of your video equipment," defendant replied, "[o]ver $20,000." The Civil Court, without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000.
Here, there was no competent proof establishing specifically the items that defendant had not returned, as plaintiff described them only as "video equipment." Additionally, there was no evidence adduced at trial establishing the value of plaintiff's used property. "To establish damages for the loss of personal property, there must be some testimony as to the property's value by the owner or someone familiar with the property's quality and condition such as its original cost, age and condition at the time of the loss" ( Charles v. Boland , 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51524[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Consequently, there was no basis for the Civil Court to award plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the complaint is dismissed.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.