Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton, Suffolk County (Deborah E. Kooperstein, J.), entered June 16, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,500.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced the instant small claims action to recover damages from defendant, alleging that the Great Dane puppy which they purchased from defendant, a breeder, was not in good health at the time of sale. The contract of sale stated that the puppy had been examined, and had been found to be without defect or disease and in good health. The contract also required that any claims regarding the health of the dog be made within three business days of purchase. Although plaintiffs had the dog examined by their veterinarian the day after purchase, upon re-examination two weeks later, they discovered that the dog was suffering from severe hip dysplasia, a congenital condition. They notified defendant immediately, and she suggested that the dog be examined by her own veterinarian. That examination did not occur, and plaintiffs ultimately opted to have the dog undergo surgery for the condition. They sought to recover the purchase price of the dog as well as the cost of the surgery. Defendant contended that plaintiffs were not entitled to damages since they did not comply with the terms of the contract. After trial, the court awarded plaintiffs $1,500, representing the purchase price of the dog. This appeal ensued.

The standard of review on appeal of a small claims judgment is that "substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UJCA 1807). A small claims judgment may not be reversed absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the court's conclusions, or that the court's determination is otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice (see Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620 [1986]; see also Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167 [1976]). [*2]

Dogs have been held to constitute "goods" within the meaning of section 2-105 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and defendant, a private breeder, is a "merchant" within the meaning of UCC 2-104 (1) (see Sacco v Tate, 175 Misc 2d 901 [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 1998]; see also Saxton v Pets Warehouse, 180 Misc 2d 377 [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 1999]). Consequently, the award in favor of plaintiffs may be sustained based upon a finding of defendant's breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (UCC 2-314). The evidence submitted by plaintiffs at trial adequately established that the dog suffered from severe hip dysplasia, a congenital condition which, by its nature, had to have existed at the time of sale, and could not have resulted from any mistreatment while under the care of plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court's conclusion that plaintiffs were entitled to recover the $1,500 purchase price (UCC 2-714 [1]) was supported by the record and rendered "substantial justice between the parties" (UJCA 1804).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Lippman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 8, 2007