Opinion
No. 2023-1130 W C
07-25-2024
Rosemarie Mosny, Respondent, v. Antonio H. Sabater, Appellant.
Antonio H. Sabater, appellant pro se. Rosemarie Mosny, respondent pro se.
Unpublished Opinion
Antonio H. Sabater, appellant pro se.
Rosemarie Mosny, respondent pro se.
PRESENT:: JAMES P. McCORMACK, J.P., GRETCHEN WALSH, ELENA GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Peekskill, Westchester County (Lissette G. Fernandez, J.), entered May 5, 2023. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action in May 2022 to recover $3,300 for defendant's breach of an oral agreement to pay plaintiff $150 per month to store defendant's boat in plaintiff's driveway. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that defendant offered to pay her $150 per month to store his boat at plaintiff's residence for an indefinite period of time, that she accepted his offer, and that defendant parked his boat in her driveway in August 2020. She further testified that defendant never paid her, and that she had asked defendant to remove his boat on multiple occasions, but he refused. Although the parties had no written agreement, defendant and his mother, who testified on his behalf, both admitted that the parties had an agreement whereby plaintiff would store defendant's boat for an indefinite length of time, and that his boat remained at plaintiff's residence at the time of trial in May 2023. Defendant also corroborated plaintiff's testimony that she had an officer from the Putnam County Sheriff's Station contact defendant in April 2022 about removing his boat from plaintiff's property. However, defendant testified that he did not remove the boat when he was initially contacted by the officer, because he was at work, and then, when he later contacted the officer to discuss removing the boat, she advised him that it was a "civil matter," and the officer would not escort him to plaintiff's residence to remove the boat. Defendant disputed plaintiff's assertion that he parked the boat in plaintiff's driveway in August 2020; he maintained that he did not bring the boat to plaintiff's residence until August 2021. Defendant and his mother testified that defendant never agreed to compensate plaintiff for storing his boat, and that the arrangement was gratuitous since the parties were friends.
Before rendering a decision, the court asked plaintiff how she calculated her damages, and plaintiff indicated that the $3,300 amount represented her damages from August 2020 through May 2022 at a rate of $150 per month. At the conclusion of the trial, the City Court (Lissette G. Fernandez, J.) found that defendant lacked credibility, and determined that the damages in this case exceeded $3,300 based on the number of months the boat was stored on plaintiff's property. Following the nonjury trial, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $5,000.
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" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126 [2000]). The determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 A.D.2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d at 126).
Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807). Defendant's contention that the Small Claims Part was without jurisdiction to render a judgment in this matter, since he did not reside in Peekskill, New York, is without merit, as defendant resided in Westchester County (see UCCA 1801). Further, the City Court had personal jurisdiction over defendant, as he appeared at trial, and admitted that he was served with process (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Cadoo, 197 A.D.3d 588, 589 [2021]).
Defendant's argument that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof at trial, since there was no documentary evidence that he agreed to pay plaintiff a monthly fee for storing his boat, also lacks merit. Here, the City Court credited plaintiff's testimony that the parties had an oral agreement requiring defendant to pay plaintiff $150 a month to store his boat at plaintiff's residence for an indefinite period of time, and that defendant's boat had remained parked in plaintiff's driveway since August 2020. While defendant and his mother claimed that the agreement was gratuitous, since the parties were friends, and defendant maintained that the boat was not parked in plaintiff's driveway before August 2021, we find no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are entitled to substantial deference. Further, a Facebook message written by plaintiff, dated July 16, 2021, which was admitted into evidence at trial, asking defendant when he would be picking up the boat, is consistent with plaintiff's testimony that the boat was parked in her driveway before August 2021. Contrary to defendant's contention, the oral agreement is not rendered unenforceable by the statute of frauds, as the agreement was capable of being performed within one year, since defendant could have elected to pick up his boat at any point (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt & Sons, 22 N.Y.2d 171, 176 [1968]; Radnay v Charge & Ride, 266 A.D.2d 194, 196 [1999]; Samilson v Stahlwood Toy Mfg. Co., 154 A.D.2d 525, 526 [1989]).
Although defendant alleges that the damages awarded were excessive based on the fact that plaintiff only requested $3,300 when she commenced this action, we decline to reduce the judgment, as defendant has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense by the amount of damages awarded (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23 [1981]). While ordinarily a motion to amend the complaint to increase the amount requested in the ad damnum clause is required in order for a court to award additional damages (id. at 20-21), given the absence of a formal pleading in a small claims action, and the "informal and simplified procedure on small claims" (UCCA 1804), a formal motion was not required before the court awarded a judgment in excess of the amount requested by plaintiff. Defendant had notice that plaintiff was seeking damages based on defendant's breach of an agreement to pay plaintiff $150 per month for storage of his boat, and plaintiff explained at trial that the $3,300 represented her damages up to the period when the small claims action was filed. As defendant failed to remove his boat from plaintiff's property between when the action was commenced in May 2022 and the date of the trial in May 2023, additional damages continued to accrue during this period. Consequently, the damages awarded is supported by the record.
Defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lack merit.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
McCORMACK, J.P., WALSH and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.