Appeal by plaintiff on the ground of inadequacy from a commercial claims judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County (S. Hackeling, J.), entered March 26, 2003, which awarded it the principal sum of $1,706.

Judgment unanimously modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the sum of $2,906; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this commercial claims action, plaintiff, a provider of cardiac monitoring services, sought to recover the unrefunded portion of the purchase price of a closed circuit audio-visual system which plaintiff had paid defendant to install in its office, on the ground that the remote audio component never functioned as had been promised.
Defendant acknowledged that there had initially been a problem with the audio component, but blamed the problem on the manufacturer's software and on plaintiff's networking system, and claimed that it had ultimately fixed the system. Although the trial court found that plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the balance of the purchase price, it reduced plaintiff's award by $1,200, which was the amount defendant asserted it was due for the additional networking services provided allegedly outside the original invoice. There was no evidence to establish that defendant was independently hired to fix the network, or that plaintiff agreed to compensate defendant over and above the original contract price. Moreover, defendant did not submit any evidence to [*2]establish the value of its services. It was, therefore, error for the trial court to offset plaintiff's award by the amount claimed by defendant. Accordingly, in order that "substantial justice. . . [be] done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807-A), the judgment should be modified by increasing the award in favor of plaintiff to the sum of $2,906.
Decision Date: September 20, 2004