Opinion
No. 2023-195 W C
10-17-2024
James Murtha, Respondent, v. George Burns, Doing Business as Magna Dry, Appellant, Sadore Lane Gardens, Inc., Doing Business as Prime Locations, Inc., Defendant.
Andrew M. Romano, for appellant. James Murtha, respondent pro se.
Unpublished Opinion
Andrew M. Romano, for appellant.
James Murtha, respondent pro se.
PRESENT:: JERRY GARGUILO, P.J., GRETCHEN WALSH, ELENA GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ
Appeals from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County Appellate Term Docket No. 2023-996 W C Lower Court # S.C. 147-22 (Evan Inlaw, J.), entered February 3, 2023 and a judgment of that court entered February 7, 2023. The February 3, 2023 judgment (appeal No. 2023-195 W C, index No. SC 282-22), insofar as appealed from, after a joint nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000 as against defendant George Burns, d/b/a Magna Dry. The February 7, 2023 judgment (appeal No. 2023-996 W C, index No. SC 147-22), after the joint trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.
ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further, ORDERED that the February 3, 2023 judgment (appeal No. 2023-195 W C, index No. SC 282-22), insofar as appealed from, and the February 7, 2023 judgment (appeal No. 2023-996 W C, index No. SC 147-22) are affirmed, without costs.
In or about May 2022, plaintiff commenced a small claims action (index No. SC-147-22, appeal No. 2023-996 W C) against George Burns, d/b/a Magna Dry (Burns), seeking damages in the amount of $4,335 for the "loss of use of property" (i.e., rental income) covering several months commencing on February 1, 2022. In or about August 2022, plaintiff commenced a second small claims action (index No. SC-282-22, appeal No. 2023-195 W C) against Burns and "Sadore Lane Gardens, Inc., Doing Business as Prime Locations, Inc.," seeking damages in the amount of $5,000 for the "loss of use of property" (i.e., rental income) covering more recent months.
The record indicates that Prime Locations, Inc. is the management company for Sadore Lane Gardens, Inc. There is nothing in the record to support the indication in the caption of this case that Sadore Lane Gardens, Inc. does business in any other name.
Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, on January 9, 2023, a joint nonjury trial was held on index numbers SC-147-22 and SC-282-22 at which plaintiff testified that he owns shares in a cooperative apartment building (Sadore Lane Gardens) where he resides and where he rents out apartment 7R. The building was managed by Prime Locations, Inc. (Prime). In February 2018, apartment 7R was severely damaged by a fire started by plaintiff's then-tenant, and the apartment required a gut renovation. Prime hired Burns to do the renovations. The renovations were completed when plaintiff rented apartment 7R to a new tenant in August 2019. However, numerous issues arose with the renovations, including alleged failures to satisfy building code requirements. Due to these and other issues, plaintiff's new tenant moved out of the apartment in January 2022. That tenant had been paying plaintiff at least $1,440 in monthly rent, plus $70 per month for indoor parking. Thereafter, Burns hired a subcontractor to repair the initial renovations. Upon completion of the repairs by the subcontractor, plaintiff did not receive a certificate of occupancy for the apartment, allegedly because Burns had failed to pay the subcontractor. Consequently, plaintiff claimed that he was unable to rent out the apartment and seeks in these two separate small claims actions to recover his loss of rental income during the months that the renovations were being repaired and during which he had no certificate of occupancy. Burns testified, among other things, that the subcontractor began the renovation repairs in January 2022, which took about two months to complete, that all violations had been cured, that the subcontractor had recently been paid in full, and that there was nothing preventing plaintiff from obtaining a certificate of occupancy and renting out the apartment. The defense also argued that there was no privity of contract between Burns and plaintiff.
Thereafter, on February 2, 2023, in two separate decisions after trial, the City Court (Evan Inlaw, J.) found that plaintiff had lost a year of rental income totaling over $10,000. With respect to the May 2022 complaint (index No. SC-147-22, appeal No. 2023- 996 W C), the City Court noted that "This court's jurisdiction is limited to $5,000" and, in a judgment entered February 7, 2023, the court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000. With respect to the August 2022 complaint (index No. SC-282-22, appeal No. 2023-195 W C), in a judgment entered February 3, 2023, the City Court awarded plaintiff another $5,000. The court noted that its "jurisdiction is limited to $5,000," and "acknowledge[d] the fact that, in a previous action in this court (i.e., index No. SC-147-22), the plaintiff was already granted a judgment for $5,000.00 out of the defendant's total... liability for lost rent incurred by the plaintiff."
Defendant Burns appeals from both judgments, contending that there is no privity of contract between the parties; that plaintiff improperly split his cause of action; that plaintiff failed to prove his damages; and that the City Court exceeded its jurisdictional limit by twice awarding plaintiff $5,000.
In a small claims action, this court's 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 1804; see UCCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126 [2000]).
At the outset, we note that plaintiff did not split his cause of action. The trial testimony showed that the second action sought to recover damages accruing subsequent to the first action (i.e., from August 2022 to January 2023).
It is uncontroverted that no contract existed between plaintiff and Burns; rather, plaintiff's apartment was renovated pursuant to a contract between Prime and Burns. Despite the lack of privity between the parties, we conclude from the circumstances presented that plaintiff was the intended beneficiary of the contract, as there was an existing contract between Prime and Burns, the contract was intended for plaintiff's benefit, and plaintiff's benefit was sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate that Burns assumed a duty to compensate plaintiff if the benefit was lost (see Town of W. Seneca v Kideney Architects, P.C., 187 A.D.3d 1509, 1511 [2020]; Board of Mgrs. of 100 Congress Condominium v SDS Congress, LLC, 152 A.D.3d 478, 480 [2017]; Logan-Baldwin v L.S.M. Gen. Contrs., Inc., 94 A.D.3d 1466, 1468-1469 [2012]; Gap, Inc. v Fisher Dev., Inc., 27 A.D.3d 209 [2006]; cf. Mendel v Henry Phipps Plaza W., Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 783, 786 [2006]). In view of the foregoing, plaintiff was entitled to hold Burns liable for plaintiff's proven damages. Consequently, the judgments of the City Court provided substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d at 126).
Burns's remaining contention lacks merit.
Accordingly, the February 3, 2023 judgment (appeal No. 2023-195 W C, index No. SC 282-22), insofar as appealed from, and the February 7, 2023 judgment (appeal No. 2023-996 W C, index No. SC 147-22) are affirmed.
GARGUILO, P.J., WALSH and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.