Opinion
2014-2725 D C
04-06-2016
Dahyabhai M. Patel, Appellant, v. The Home Depot, Respondent.
PRESENT: :
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County (Raymond C. Chase, Jr., J.), entered October 27, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for a new trial.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action in the Justice Court of the Village of Wappingers Falls to recover the principal sum of $3,000 for the allegedly faulty installation of a kitchen countertop. A nonjury trial commenced on September 4, 2014 before Justice Joseph G. Todaro and was adjourned after plaintiff and his expert witness had testified. On the adjourned date, September 18, 2014, the parties appeared before Justice Raymond C. Chase, Jr., and plaintiff testified anew making the same factual assertions as he had on September 4, 2014. Plaintiff's expert witness was not present on September 18th. At the conclusion of the September 18th proceedings, Justice Chase dismissed the action without setting forth his factual findings and conclusions of law.
If we view the proceedings of September 18, 2014 as a continuation of the September 4th trial, it was improper for Justice Chase to render a judgment, since testimony had been presented at the first day of trial before Justice Todaro, which Justice Chase had not heard. Indeed, "[t]he right to have a decision made by the Trial Judge who presided over the entire matter is so basic and fundamental [to our jurisprudence] that it is not waived by the failure of counsel to object at the time of [trial]" (Michel v Michel, 31 AD2d 313, 316 [1969]; see Judiciary Law § 21; Matter of Connelly-Logal v West, 272 AD2d 920 [2000]).
Alternatively, to the extent that the proceedings before Justice Chase on September 18, 2014 can be viewed as an entirely new trial (with the trial that began on September 4, 2014 before Justice Todaro being a nullity), we find that plaintiff was prejudiced thereby because he was apparently unaware of the need to have his expert witness appear on September 18th and testify again.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for a new trial.
Iannacci, J.P., and Tolbert, J., concur. Decision Date: April 06, 2016