Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered January 11, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,200 for repairs required to be made to a used car which he had purchased from defendant. Although plaintiff purchased the car on December 20, 2010, he did not take possession of the car until April 21, 2011. At that time, plaintiff alleged, both the transmission and brakes were in need of repair. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention on appeal, the District Court admitted into evidence a police department field report, dated May 7, 2011, which only referred to the "check engine" light being illuminated and made no reference to a brake problem, for the purpose of showing that plaintiff had complained about the car shortly after he had taken possession of the car. To the extent that plaintiff seeks damages for the cost of repairing the car's allegedly defective transmission, even if liability were deemed to have been established, plaintiff failed to submit into evidence either a paid bill or two itemized estimates to establish the reasonable value and necessity of such repair (see UDCA 1804). With respect to the remaining defect alleged, the District Court could properly conclude that it arose subsequent to the time the car was tendered to plaintiff. As the record supports the District Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Marano, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.