Opinion
2007-1286 N C.
Decided October 9, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Edmund M. Dane, J.), entered March 16, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
PRESENT: McCABE, J.P., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ.
Judgment reversed without costs and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial.
Plaintiff, a private investigator, commenced the instant small claims action to recover for investigative services rendered to defendant. Following a nonjury trial, the court below dismissed the action based upon plaintiff's failure to provide defendant with an advance statement of services and charges, in violation of 19 NYCRR 173.1 (a). This appeal by plaintiff ensued.
Our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807). The deference which we normally accord to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). Even if the appellate court differs with the small claims court on an arguable point of fact or law, it should not reverse absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the trial court's conclusions or that they are otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice ( see Payne v Biglin , 2 Misc 3d 127 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51694[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2003]).
Pursuant to 19 NYCRR 173.1 (a), a licensed private investigator "shall [not] undertake to perform any services on behalf of a client unless such licensee shall have delivered to the client a written statement, signed by the licensee, which shall set forth the specific service or services to be performed and the charge or fee therefor." Although plaintiff testified at trial that he failed to provide defendant with such statement in advance of performing his services, plaintiff provided the court with evidence of having performed some investigative work. Assuming defendant authorized and accepted plaintiff's services, plaintiff is not precluded from recovering the value of his services in quantum meruit ( see Joe O'Brien Investigations v Zorn, 263 AD2d 812). Neither the promulgating statute (General Business Law art 7) nor the regulation in question provides that the failure to comply therewith results in a forfeiture of fees ( Joe O'Brien Investigations v Zorn, 263 AD2d at 814). Indeed, to deny recovery under quantum meruit would permit defendant to utilize the regulation as a means of evading a just obligation ( id. at 815).
Accordingly, the court below erred in dismissing the action based upon its finding that plaintiff was barred from recovery due to noncompliance with the regulation. Since the court below did not make a finding regarding whether defendant authorized and accepted plaintiff's investigative services and, if so, the value of the services rendered to defendant, a new trial is required in order to achieve substantial justice between the parties.
McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.