[*1]
YCA Corp. v Baker
2015 NY Slip Op 50075(U) [46 Misc 3d 138(A)]
Decided on January 15, 2015
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on January 15, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : TOLBERT, J.P., IANNACCI and GARGUILO, JJ.
2012-2648 W C

YCA Corp., Appellant,

against

Kirk Baker and SUSAN BAKER, Respondents.


Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County (Nicholas C. Maselli, J.), entered June 14, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $297.52.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by increasing the amount of the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $709.86; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the sum of $709.86, representing unpaid fees for tax reduction services it had provided to defendants. Pursuant to the agreement signed by both defendants, defendants agreed to pay 65% of the first year reduction in real estate taxes. Defendants asserted that they were not obligated to pay plaintiff since, they alleged, plaintiff was not authorized to pursue an appeal to obtain a tax reduction on defendants' behalf and that an appeal would only be authorized if they first paid the $30 filing fee for the appeal, which they did not do. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court found that plaintiff was not entitled to a fee in the amount of 65% of the tax reduction obtained as per the parties' agreement because plaintiff pursued the tax reduction case on appeal without defendants' permission. However, the court found that an implied contract existed and that plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $500 as the fair value of its services, but that since plaintiff had retained defendants' tax refund of $202.48, plaintiff was entitled to a judgment in the principal sum of $297.52. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.

The contract between the parties provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

"I hereby authorize and direct YCA Corp. to act as my exclusive agent and to file Complaint and/or Petition to challenge my real property tax assessment for the 2010/11-tax year (filing occurs during calendar year 2010). As my exclusive agent, YCA Corp. will act on my behalf in any and all proceedings before the Board of Assessment Review of [sic] any assessing authority of the real property and/or the Small Claims Assessment Review of the NYS Supreme Court. . . .

I agree to pay 65% of the first year reduction in real estate taxes that are applicable to my property. The fee is due and payable within 30 days of being notified by YCA Corp. of reduction by any assessing authority or Supreme Court Judgment. A $30 Supreme Court filing fee will apply only if appeal needs to be filed with the Court."


Nowhere in the agreement does it say that defendants must first pay the $30 fee or give further approval before plaintiff was authorized to pursue an appeal of an adverse Board ruling by filing a Small Claims Assessment Review petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the real property tax assessment. At the Justice Court nonjury trial, the evidence showed that plaintiff had obtained a reduction in defendants' property assessment, which translated to a town and school tax reduction for defendants in the amount of $1,357.45. Based on the evidence, we find that plaintiff was entitled to recover 65% of the $1,357.45 tax reduction, i.e., $882.34, plus the $30 filing fee for the Supreme Court petition. Since plaintiff concedes that it has retained defendants' tax refund in the sum of $202.48, plaintiff is entitled to an award in the principal sum of $709.86.

Accordingly, we modify the judgment by increasing the amount of the award in favor of plaintiff to the principal sum of $709.86.

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


Decision Date: January 15, 2015