Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered December 2, 2011. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, dismissed so much of plaintiff's action as sought to recover the sum of $3,799.99, allegedly due to her as the price of sectional furniture and a bed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the action is remitted to the District Court for a new trial before a judge or different court attorney referee, limited to a determination of plaintiff's claim for the sum of $3,799.99, representing the price of the sectional furniture and bed, in accordance with the decision herein.

At a nonjury trial of this small claims action, the parties testified that they had previously been married to each other but had divorced, and that, after their divorce, they had resumed cohabiting for a period of two months. It was uncontested that, during that two-month period, using plaintiff's credit card, the parties had purchased several items of furniture, among other things, and that when they had separated, they had entered into a written agreement pursuant to which defendant would keep certain items of property for which he would pay plaintiff, including sectional living room furniture and a bed. Plaintiff brought this action to recover sums she claimed she was due under the parties' written agreement, as well as a portion of the credit card debt she had incurred. Defendant conceded that he had entered into the written agreement which plaintiff had introduced into evidence. Defendant asserted that he had made certain payments, but was not permitted to testify as to their amounts or purposes. Following the trial, judgment was entered in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

As limited by her brief, plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as failed to award her $2,200 for the sectional furniture and $1,599.99 for the bed which the parties had purchased [*2]after their divorce. Since plaintiff's cause of action arose after the parties' divorce and did not concern marital property, there was no bar to the District Court's full consideration of the parties' claims and defenses. We conclude that the dismissal of so much of plaintiff's action as sought to recover these two sums failed to render substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the action is remitted to the District Court for a new trial before a judge or a different court attorney referee, limited to a determination of plaintiff's right to recover payment from defendant for the sectional furniture and bed, and the amounts of payments, if any, made by defendant with respect to those items.

LaSalle, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 23, 2013