The facts of this case are not very complicated.

The plaintiff signed a contract to purchase a house from the Ruth M. Hahn Revocable Trust (Trust). The defendant in this case is the trustee for the Trust and completed the Property Condition Disclosure Statement (Statement) on behalf of the Trust. The plaintiff testified that he had signed the contract based upon the answers contained in the Statement. After signing the contract, the plaintiff had a home inspection performed which showed that there were significant problems with the house. As a result, the plaintiff exercised his right to cancel the contract. He then instituted the present Small Claims action seeking $3,000 in damages which included the cost of the home inspection ($475), penalties associated with a violation of Section 17-103(3) of the Energy Law, punitive damages and attorney's fees. The basis of the claim was that the defendant knowingly made false representations in the Statement to induce the plaintiff to enter into an agreement to purchase the property. Had the defendant been truthful, the plaintiff would not have incurred the cost of the home inspection. The defendant testified that he filled out the Statement to the best of his ability and was not aware of any of the problems that were discovered in the inspection report.

With regard to that portion of the claim requesting penalties pursuant to Section 17-103(3) of the Energy Law, the Court has reviewed the following statutes. Section 1801 of the Uniform Justice Court Act refers to a "cause of action for money only . . . ." Section 1804 of the Uniform Justice Court Act refers to an "itemized bill or invoice" or "two itemized estimates for services or repairs . . ." for purposes of proving damages. In addition, Section 17-103 of the Energy Laws refers to Section 5-119 of the Energy Law which indicates that such penalties go to the People of the State of New York. It is the finding of the Court that a claim for penalties under a provision of the Energy Law is not permitted in a Small Claims action. Accordingly, that portion of the claim is hereby dismissed. [*2]

In a Small Claims action, the party bringing the cause of action has the burden of proof. There is no question that the Statement prepared by the defendant did not contain as much information as was contained in the Home Inspection report. However, that does not impute liability in the present case as there is no proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally made any false statements. As noted on the home inspection report itself, "This disclosure statement is not a warranty of any kind by the seller or by any agent representing the seller in this transaction. It is not a substitute for any inspections or tests and the buyer is encouraged to obtain his or her own independent professional inspections . . . ."

Accordingly, it is the finding of this Court that the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof and his claim is hereby dismissed.

ROBERT A. RYBAK

Town Justice