Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (Gigi A. Spelman, J.), entered January 11, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment reversed without costs and judgment directed to be entered in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $1,800.

In this small claims action seeking to recover $4,925 representing the down payment of the purchase price paid to defendant for a used 2000 Honda "Certified Civic" and a Honda Care Certified Vehicle Service Plan, substantial justice was not done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807).

At the time plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle from defendant, they also purchased a service plan which covered repairs to be performed at any Honda dealership in the nation. However, the evidence adduced at trial established that when plaintiffs' vehicle was brought to another dealership for repairs, said dealership refused to make any necessary repairs under the service plan and claimed that the service plan was voided because aftermarket parts, which are not covered under the service plan, were installed in the vehicle. It is undisputed that the aftermarket parts had been installed prior to the sale of the vehicle to plaintiffs. When the service plan was sold to plaintiffs, they were misled by defendant who failed to advise them that the service plan would not cover the aftermarket parts installed in the vehicle.

Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the down payment of the purchase price of the [*2]vehicle, since plaintiffs failed to establish that the vehicle was defective at the time of delivery (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 417) or that defendant violated General Business Law § 198-b ("Used Car Lemon Law"). Accordingly, we find that plaintiffs are entitled to recover the cost of the service plan in the sum of $1,800.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 4, 2007