[*1]
Leff v Floorever Carpet & Floor Coverings Ltd.
2008 NY Slip Op 50351(U) [18 Misc 3d 139(A)]
Decided on February 26, 2008
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on February 26, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2006-2170 N C.

Robert Leff, Respondent,

against

Floorever Carpet & Floor Coverings Ltd. d/b/a Floorever Carpet & Design, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Howard S. Miller, J.), entered January 24, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $6,370.


Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action commenced against defendant, Floorever Carpet & Floor Coverings LTD., plaintiff alleged that a judgment was rendered against "Floorever Carpet & Design" in a prior action, but said defendant failed to pay the judgment. Plaintiff further alleged that the true name of said judgment debtor is Floorever Carpet & Floor Coverings Ltd. and the notice of entry of the prior judgment was served upon defendant on August 4, 2005. Accordingly, pursuant to UDCA 1813 (a), plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $5,020, the amount of the prior judgment, plus attorney's fees and costs. Following a trial, the court below awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $6,370.

We find that plaintiff properly established his cause of action. Contrary to defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that this action was commenced on or after September 20, 2005, at which time the judgment in the underlying action had remained unpaid for more than 35 days after defendant received notice of its entry (UDCA 1813 [a]). We further find that the issue of privity of contract between Robert Leff and defendant is not a necessary element of plaintiff's prima facie case under UDCA 1813 (a) as privity was established in the prior action against the judgment debtor. Consequently, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 26, 2008