Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jack M. Battaglia, J.), entered September 29, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover from defendant the purchase price of a bridesmaid's gown which, she alleged, had not been properly altered. At trial, plaintiff testified that she had had two fittings at defendant's salon and that she picked up the gown three days before the date of the wedding. When she
picked it up, the gown was ironed and on a hanger, and she did not try it on in the store. A salesperson allegedly assured her that it was perfect. On the day of the wedding, she tried the gown on for the first time and discovered that it did not fit properly. Defendant's manager testified that the problem with the fit of the gown (which could be seen in the photograph of plaintiff taken on the day of the wedding) would only be apparent when plaintiff tried it on.

Our review is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done "according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807). Prior to plaintiff's acceptance of the gown, she had an opportunity to inspect, and to reject, the gown if it failed "in any respect to conform to the contract" (UCC 2-601; see also UCC 2-602, 2-606). Had plaintiff inspected the gown, the improper alterations might have been apparent to her, and defendant might have been able to rectify the problem (see generally UCC 2-508). Upon her acceptance, plaintiff could no longer reject the gown (UCC 2-607 [2]). Under the circumstances presented, plaintiff failed to establish a justifiable revocation of her acceptance of the gown (UCC 2-608). In any event, even if plaintiff had established her entitlement to damages for the alleged nonconformity (see [*2]
UCC 2-714), she failed to submit estimates regarding what the cost of any necessary alterations would have been. Under the circumstances, the court below properly dismissed the action.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 16, 2007