This is a Commercial Claims action commenced pursuant to Uniform City Court Act (UCCA), Article 18-A.

For the reasons that follow, the action is dismissed.

Facts

Plaintiff owns and operates U-R Rite Auto Rentals and Leasing, LLC, located at 1075 Washington Street, Peekskill, New York. On or about July 23, 2013, Plaintiff rented a 2001 dark blue Chevy Impala 4DR to the Defendant (See Rental Agreement (Agreement), Plt's Exh. #1 in Evid.). The Agreement contained information on the make, model, year, VIN number and current number of miles (151,260) of the rental vehicle. In addition, it contained information on the exterior condition of the car: "minor scratches and dent(ed) [wheel] well." Further, the Agreement indicated that the first 150 miles were free and that thereafter the Defendant would have to pay .22 cents per mile; it also provided that Defendant would pay a $40.00 per day rental fee plus tax. Defendant deposited $330.00 cash and executed the Agreement.

At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he was informed by the Defendant that she was involved in a car accident with the rental vehicle. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant told him that an unknown vehicle entered her lane of travel causing her to swerve off the roadway and when she attempted to apply the brakes they failed causing her to collide with a tree (See also, Police Report, Plt's Exh. 4No. in Evid.).^[FN1] Plaintiff filed a claim with his insurance carrier, Lancer Insurance Company (Lancer), which investigated the accident and Defendant's claim that the brakes failed. Plaintiff stated that Defendant failed to cooperate with the claims investigator from Lancer and that [*2]since the investigator could not interview the Defendant or find any evidence that the brakes were inoperable, Lancer denied the Plaintiff's insurance claim.^[FN2]

Plaintiff testified that Lancer deemed the rental car a total loss. However, Plaintiff was unable to provide the Court with any documentation confirming that the rental car was deemed a total loss. In addition, Plaintiff was unable to provide the Court with any photographs of the damage to the rental vehicle.^[FN3] Plaintiff stated that he gave the car to an auto parts facility but he was unable to proffer any documentation of the transfer.

Plaintiff offered into evidence two documents purporting to be appraisals of the rental vehicle (See, Appraisals from JRL Wholesale Motor, Plt's Exh. #3 in Evid.; Beach Auto Group, Inc., Plt's Exh. #4 in Evid.). Both appraisals were dated March 10, 2014, both appraisals contained handwritten "wholesale" and "retail" appraisal values,^[FN4] and neither appraisal contained any information on the pre-accident market value or salvage value of the rental vehicle.

Discussion

It has been held that the Small Claims Part of a City Court is commanded to "do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law." Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126, 703 N.Y.S.2d 77, 79 (1st Dept 2000); UCCA §1804; see also, Milsner v. McGahon, 20 Misc 3d 127(A), 2008 WL 2522307 (App. Term. 9th & 10th Judicial Districts); Basler v. M & S Masonry & Construction, Inc., 21 Misc 3d 137(A), 2008 WL 4916105 (App. Term, 9th & 10th Judicial Districts). This is especially so since the practice, procedures and forms utilized in the Small Claims Part were meant to "constitute a simple, informal and inexpensive procedure for the prompt determination of such claims in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law." UCCA §1802-A. Further, the Court "shall not be bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence ." UCCA §1804-A.

Notwithstanding the informal procedures and low evidentiary threshold utilized in the Small Claims Part, a party commencing an action in said part is not excused from its statutory obligation to prove its damages by presenting an "itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates for services or repairs, [which] are admissible in evidence and are prima facie evidence of the reasonable value and necessity of such services and repairs." Id. Where a party fails to submit the required statutory proof of its damages, the case law is fairly uniform that a dismissal is warranted. See, McFaddin v. C.A. Putnam Construction, 23 Misc 3d 133(A), 2009 WL 1066917 (App. Term, 9th & 10th Judicial Districts); Cortes v. Adams Concrete and Construction, 25 Misc 3d 133(A), 2009 WL 3449024 (App. Term, 9th & 10th Judicial Districts); Monforte v. Jamisha Automotive Corp., 23 Misc 3d 144(A), 2009 WL 1563560 (App. Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts); Cf., Felipe v Das, 22 Misc 3d 141(A), 2009 WL 679505 [*3](App. Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts)(a single repair estimate may be sufficient to establish damages if it was prepared by the defendant's insurance carrier).

In the case at bar, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant totaled the rental vehicle. It is well settled that the measure of damages for a totally destroyed vehicle is the difference between the market value of the vehicle before destruction and the salvage value of the wreckage. See, Aurnou v. Craig, 184 AD2d 1048, 584 N.Y.S.2d 249 (4th Dept 1992); Owens v. State, 96 AD2d 630, 464 N.Y.S.2d 870 (3rd Dept 1983); Gass v. Agate Ice Cream, 264 NY 141, 144, 190 N.E. 323 (1934); 7C Warren on Negligence in New York Courts, Personal Property, Lost, Destroyed or Injured, §8.01[1]. Here, the Plaintiff submitted no proof regarding the pre-accident market value of the rental car, no proof that the rental car was totaled, and no photographs of the damage to the rental car. It would appear that the Plaintiff failed to sustain his statutory burden on proof of damages. While there is un-rebutted proof that the rental vehicle sustained damages and that the defendant caused said damages, the evidentiary record before the Court is almost devoid of any proof regarding the pre-accident market value of the rental car in question, which is indispensable to proving a claim based on total loss of a motor vehicle. Gass v. Agate Ice Cream, supra.; Aurnou v. Craig, supra.

From a purely substantive law perspective, the Plaintiff's evidence is wholly insufficient. Without any proof with regard to the pre-accident market value of the rental car, the Court is left to infer or surmise what that value was. The Court declines to do so. "A judicial award, even one issued in the context of a small claims action, must rest upon competent evidence, and not mere inference or surmise." Rollock v. Modell, Inc., 169 Misc 2d 663, 665, 652 N.Y.S.2d 465, 467 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 1996). Since the Plaintiff failed to prove his damages by competent evidence, the action must be dismissed.

Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing in this matter, this Court, in the interests of substantial justice in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law, dismisses this action.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

___________________________

Hon. Reginald J. Johnson

Peekskill City Court Judge

DATED:Peekskill, New York

April 4, 2014