Defendant appeals from an order of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), dated February 16, 2012, which denied its motion to dismiss the action and for leave to conduct discovery.

Per Curiam.

Order (Margaret A. Chan, J.), dated February 16, 2012, affirmed, without costs.

Defendant's (renewed) motion to dismiss this small claims action as "improper" was correctly denied. To the extent plaintiff's claim — tersely described in the case record card as one for "personal injuries" — may ultimately be determined to implicate the no-fault law (see Insurance Law §§ 5102, 5104), defendant failed to demonstrate, at this juncture, that the claim lacks facial merit. Nor, contrary to defendant's contention, is there any statutory or case law prohibition against a recovery for pain and suffering in a small claims case (see e.g. Alice D. v William M., 113 Misc 2d 940 [1982, Saxe, J.]). "We reiterate the rule that pretrial motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should rarely, if ever, be entertained in Small Claims Court" (Friedman v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 167 Misc 2d 57, 58 [1995]).

The court properly denied the branch of defendant's motion for leave to conduct discovery, in the absence of any showing of special or "proper circumstances" (CCA 1804; see Matter of Yee v Town of Orangetown, 76 AD3d 104, 109-110 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: November 15, 2012