Opinion
2013-06-6
Brenda ROWE, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. SILVER & GOLD EXPRESSIONS, Appellant.
David M. Brown, Binghamton, for appellant. Brenda Rowe, Vestal, respondent pro se.
David M. Brown, Binghamton, for appellant. Brenda Rowe, Vestal, respondent pro se.
Before: STEIN, J.P., SPAIN, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.
GARRY, J.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), entered October 4, 2011, which affirmed a judgment of the Binghamton City Court in favor of plaintiff Brenda Rowe.
In July 2010, plaintiffs commenced a small claims action in Binghamton City Court, alleging that defendant converted a diamond ring owned by plaintiff Brenda Rowe (hereinafter plaintiff) during an appraisal and sale of several pieces of her jewelry. Plaintiff prevailed following trial in September 2010 and was awarded damages in the sum of $5,000 plus filing fees. County Court affirmed the judgment upon the initial appeal. Defendant appeals.
Appellate review of small claims is limited to determining whether “substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UCCA 1807; accord Sten v. Desrocher, 8 A.D.3d 915, 915, 778 N.Y.S.2d 727 [2004] ); only a clearly erroneous determination will be overturned ( see Pierce v. Pastorello, 255 A.D.2d 622, 622, 679 N.Y.S.2d 482 [1998];Moses v. Randolph, 236 A.D.2d 706, 707, 653 N.Y.S.2d 214 [1997] ). Here, a credibility determination was required, and City Court chose to credit plaintiff's testimony regarding the events at defendant's premises over the testimony of two employees of defendant. We agree with County Court that the determination that plaintiff's ring was converted was not clearly erroneous, and that substantial justice was done.
Further, as to the issue of damages, we note that although small claims matters are not bound by the rules of evidence, a determination may not be based solely on hearsay ( seeUCCA 1804; Levins v. Bucholtz, 2 A.D.2d 351, 351–352, 155 N.Y.S.2d 770 [1956] ). Here, plaintiff described the size and condition of the ring in her testimony, and also submitted a “lost ring appraisal” performed by a jeweler, stating a value of $8,600. Although this appraisal, based solely upon plaintiff's description of the ring, was hearsay ( see Hickey v. T & E Serv. Sta., 12 Misc.3d 133[A], 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 51183 [U], *1, 2006 WL 1750814 [App. Term 2006] ), plaintiff's trial testimony presented some measure of competent evidence of the amount of damages, as she described the quality and condition of the ring ( see Rose v. Lagadakia Realty Corp., 31 Misc.3d 140[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 50785[U], *1–2, 2011 WL 1674203 [App. Term 2011];Slepoy v. Kliger, 26 Misc.3d 126[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 52603[U], *3, 2009 WL 4932725 [App. Term 2009];see also Carlino v. Darrigo, 38 Misc.3d 131[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 52418[U], *1, 2012 WL 6778595 [App. Term 2012] ). We further recognizethat it is not always possible to prove damages with certainty upon a conversion claim, as the property is unavailable to the claimant ( see Ahles v. Aztec Enters., 120 A.D.2d 903, 905, 502 N.Y.S.2d 821 [1986],lv. denied68 N.Y.2d 611, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 503 N.E.2d 123 [1986] ). Upon review, it appears that City Court accepted plaintiff's description and, accordingly, rendered judgment for the maximum award authorized by statute ( seeUCCA 1801). We agree with County Court that the proof was sufficient to pose issues of credibility, and the determination was not clearly erroneous.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.