Plaintiff brought this small claims proceeding to obtain one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) as a refund for defective work, labor and services performed. There was no written contract between the parties. On January 10, 2014 under docket #3055-13, this plaintiff was awarded five hundred and fifteen dollars ($515.00) in a claim against this defendant on a similar allegation.

Although the claims are not identical, they do involve the same parties and form their basis from the same transaction. Two theories come to mind. The matter is claim precluded as the plaintiff should have raised these matters in the prior lawsuit, see Fogel v. Oelmann, 7 AD3d 485 (2nd Dept. 2004) (holding that once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy), or the plaintiff is splitting his claim to make the cases fit into the jurisdictional limit of small claims, see Moore v. Pecora, 191 Misc 2d 256 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Cty. 2002) (holding that a party may not split a cause of action in order to circumvent the jurisdictional limits applicable to small claims actions).Either way the case should be and is dismissed.

The above complies with this Court's statutory charge to do substantial justice between the parties.

The above constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

HON. ADAM SEIDEN