Siegel v Fabrique Cosmetic, Inc. (2013 NY Slip Op 51100(U))

Siegel v Fabrique Cosmetic, Inc.

2013 NY Slip Op 51100(U) [40 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on June 28, 2013

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Gunther Siegel and MACRO TOOL AND MACHINE CO., Respondents, —

against

Fabrique Cosmetic, Inc., Appellant. GUNTHER SIEGEL and MACRO TOOL AND MACHINE CO., Respondents, — NO. 2012-336 W C FABRIQUE COSMETIC, INC., Appellant.

Appeals from judgments of the City Court of Peekskill, Westchester County (Thomas R. Langan, J.), entered December 14, 2009. The judgments, after a joint nonjury trial of two commercial claims actions, awarded plaintiffs the principal sums of $3,014.77 in their first action and $3,705 in their second action. [*2]

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,

Plaintiffs commenced these two commercial claims actions to recover, respectively, the sum of $3,022.02 for an unpaid invoice for custom goods designed and delivered, and the sum of $3,705 for work performed on a machine. After a joint nonjury trial of the actions, the City Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $3,014.77 in the first action and the principal sum of $3,705 in the second action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgments provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804-A, 1807-A; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The record shows that defendant did not file a counterclaim. While defendant's officer had indicated at a prior hearing that he wanted to interpose a counterclaim with respect to defendant's machine, which the officer valued at $22,000, the City Court properly advised defendant that it could not file a counterclaim that exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the City Court (see UCCA 1805-A [c]). Defendant argues that the cases should have been heard in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. However, the City Court lacks the authority to transfer cases to the Supreme Court, and defendant never sought such relief in the Supreme Court, pursuant to CPLR 325 (b). Furthermore, the City Court did not err in conducting a joint trial of the actions since they involved common issues of fact (see CPLR 602 [a]). Additionally, inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record that defendant had filed a request for a jury trial and paid, among other things, the required fee (see UCCA 1806-A), defendant waived a jury trial. Defendant's remaining contentions lack merit. As the record supports the City Court's determinations, we find no reason to disturb the judgments.