Claimant, a former tenant of defendant's, seeks to recover damages arising from flash

flooding in her apartment on four occasions between June 1, 2006 and August 28, 2006. The

claim consists of the alleged value of the time spent by claimant and her husband in their

clean-ups of the apartment in the amount of $2,080.00, computed at a proffered insurance

company rate of $26.00 per hour, and $200.00 in laundry costs.

The alleged damages now claimed are in addition to payment already received from the

defendant by way of an abatement of the September 2006 rent in the amount of $1,065.00

and $500.00 for the replacement of a carpet.

Despite defendant's unjustifiable failure to take effective action to prevent the recurrence

of the severe flooding to claimant's apartment, her claim must be dismissed for the following

reasons:

(1) at the time claimant filed this claim, she was provided with A Guide to Small Claims

Procedure, which explicitly states that proof of the value of work, labor, and/or services requires

the presentation of either an itemized paid bill or two written estimates. Claimant's testimony

that she was advised of the $26.00 reimbursement rate by her insurance company may well be [*2]

true; however it falls short of the clearly stated liberal standard of proof that is required to

establish a small claim, as does the lack of documentation of the amount claimed for laundry

expenses.; and

(2) we also conclude that there was an "accord and satisfaction" when claimant made no

further demands for payment for three months after she had accepted a full credit of $1,065.00

for the rent which was due on September 1, 2006. Nor did claimant rebut defendant's

testimony that these additional demands were made only after her uncle's car was towed away

from a restricted parking area at the direction of the defendant.

As to the first reason for dismissal of this claim, although there is a legislative mandate to

effect "substantial justice" between the parties, claimants, at a minimum, are expected to have

read The Guide to Small Claims Procedure handed to them at the time of filing and to have

substantially complied with its instructions.

As to the second reason, although the parties to a small claim are not expected to be familiar

with the case law of "waiver" and/or "accord and satisfaction," such defenses are not foreign to

the standards of "substantial justice" and common sense.

In sum, "substantial justice" for the claimant was never meant to summarily deny justice to

the defendant. See Rouskas v. Wallace J. Scott Motors, Inc. 111 Misc 2d 148 (Justice Ct. Town

of Ossining 1981).

Accordingly, let a judgment of dismissal be entered in accordance with this decision, which

shall also constitute an order of the court.

Dated: Ossining, New York [*3]

May 4, 2007Edwin S. Shapiro, O.T.J.

TO:

Liset Miranda,

Claimant

36 Clinton Avenue

Ossining, NY 10562

B. Gans Management, Inc.,

Defendant

c/o Luis Acosta, Apt. B1

42 Cedar Lane

Ossining, NY 10562