Claimant commenced this small claims action to recover $3,500 from defendant allegedly paid as collateral for a bail bond and owed to claimant. This matter was tried on May 2, 2013.

A relative of the claimant ("offender") was originally arrested on September 10, 2009. On November 5, 2009, claimant entered into a written agreement with defendant, Marvin's Bail Bonds, to provide bail in the amount of $20,000. The agreement indicated claimant paid a total of $4,500. Claimant alleged she paid an additional $1,000. However, she produced no proof evidencing such, and defendant denied same.

The agreement stated a cash collateral value of $3,040, and a premium payment in the amount of $1,460. Defendant acknowledged that if the offender returned to court timely claimant was entitled to receive reimbursement of $3,040, and it could rightfully retain $1,460. Defendant's position in this regard is consistent with Insurance Law § 6804 (a).

Defendant, however, alleged the offender did not return to court timely after his subsequent arrest on February 3, 2011, and consequently forfeited the bail. Defendant also alleged entitlement to costs associated with hiring an investigator to restrain and return the offender to court to exonerate the bail.

In support of its position, defendant produced a "webcrims" electronic docket sheet which indicated "bail forfeiture/bw Ordered stayed," dated February 3, 2011. Defendant also produced a copy of an invoice, dated August 2, 2011, from United Systems Task Force International, which indicated payment due in the amount of $3,000, and referenced the offender, an arrest date of August 2, 2011, the bond and docket number, the signature of an agent, and a handwritten notation that read "exonerated."

Defendant's witness, however, admitted he was not personally involved in bringing the offender to court or present in court on August 2, 2011, although he claimed knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the events. Defendant also produced a Supreme Court Certificate of [*2]Disposition (admitted in evidence) which indicated that the bail was exonerated on August 2, 2011.

Having reviewed the documents and considered the testimony, the court finds defendant's asserted grounds seeking costs and forfeiture of bail due to a subsequent arrest of the offender are without merit. Paragraph five of the bail agreement specifically provides:

A forfeiture of the bail shall be entered by the court if the defendant fails to make any court appearance. I understand that if the bond is ordered forfeited and it is not ordered reinstated, or exonerated within the time allowed by law, that I must pay the full amount of the bail forfeited plus expenses to the bail agent/agency.

Here, although the bail was initially listed as forfeited due to an arrest on February 3, 2011, the matter was subsequently exonerated by the court on August 2, 2011. Therefore, defendant is not entitled to recovery of money on the ground of forfeiture, since any initial default was timely cured (See CPL § 540.10 [2]).

Further, although paragraph six of the agreement permitted defendant to recover from claimant "...all reasonable costs incurred for locating, apprehending, transporting and surrendering the defendant to custody," defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing entitlement to recovery of any alleged costs. Defendant asserted that it hired United Systems Recovery Task Force International to produce the offender and present him to the court. However, at trial defendant's witness denied being present in court on the day of the alleged events and demonstrated no personal knowledge of what took place. Defendant also failed to produce a witness from United Systems Recovery Task Force with such knowledge, and to produce competent evidence of any costs associated with and paid for the alleged arrest, production, and detainment of the offender. Defendant's production of an invoice copy alone will not suffice.

This is especially true in this case as claimant alleged that the offender appeared at the numerous court appearances at which she was also present, including the subsequent arrest, bonded by a different company. Accordingly, the court finds defendant failed to establish the facts surrounding the exoneration which would entitle him to recover additional costs, and to substantiate payment of any associated costs with sufficient documentary proof. Therefore, claimant is entitled to recover $3,040. Judgment is granted in favor of the claimant in the amount of $3,040, plus $20 costs, and interest.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: Brooklyn, NY

May 14, 2013

__________________________________

Hon. Reginald A. Boddie

Judge, Civil Court