Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (Gigi A. Spelman, J.), entered October 24, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the sum of $2,429.

Judgment modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiffs to the sum of $569; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiffs sought to recover the sum of $5,000 for property damage allegedly caused by defendants, who formerly rented an apartment in plaintiffs' house. At trial, plaintiffs offered into evidence photographs depicting the premises before and after the damage, a paid bill for carpet cleaning in the amount of $69, a repair estimate for $500, and a second estimate for $2,360, covering the same work as the first estimate plus additional repairs. Basing its award on the sum of the higher estimate and the paid bill, the court awarded plaintiffs $2,429.

Pursuant to Uniform District Court Act § 1804, "an itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates for services or repairs, are admissible in evidence and are prima facie evidence of the reasonable value and necessity of such services and repairs." Here, the only proof that met said requirement was the paid bill for the cost ($69) of cleaning the carpeting and the two estimates insofar as they related to the $500 in repairs. The cost of the remainder of the additional repairs was only set forth in one estimate and therefore was not established by either a paid bill or two estimates. Accordingly, the lower court failed to render substantial justice between the parties pursuant to the rules and principles of substantive law [*2](UDCA 1807) and the judgment is modified by reducing the award as indicated.

Angiolillo, J.P., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 30, 2006