Barbara Robinson, appellant pro se. Vincent P. Nesci, P.C. (Vincent P. Nesci, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Elmsford, Westchester County (Alphonse M. Naclerio, J.), entered May 7, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $131.62.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified by providing that the award in favor of plaintiff is increased to the principal sum of $1,342.19; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover monies she had paid to have her vehicle released from defendant's auto body shop. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that she had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and her car had been towed by defendant to its shop. Plaintiff signed an authorization to permit defendant to repair her vehicle unless it was determined that the car was a total loss. Plaintiff revoked her authorization within 24 hours. Plaintiff further testified that her insurance company deemed her car to be a total loss. Defendant's owner testified that, prior to plaintiff revoking her authorization, his employees had performed certain work on plaintiff's car, and, thus, plaintiff owed defendant a total of $1,640.69. Plaintiff paid the bill so that she could retrieve her car and now seeks reimbursement of the monies she paid. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $131.62. Plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy, arguing that the court should have awarded her the amount she had paid, less the towing fee from the accident site to defendant's shop.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice (see UJCA 1807) requires that the award to plaintiff be increased to the principal sum of $1,342.19. Although the Justice Court found in favor of plaintiff, there was no basis for the award in the sum of $131.62. Rather, insofar as the record shows that plaintiff's car was totaled and thus no repairs were authorized, plaintiff is entitled to the return of the money she had paid in association with the repairs, to wit, $1,640.69, less the towing fee of $278 and the tax thereon of $20.50.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by increasing the amount awarded to plaintiff to [*2]the principal sum of $1,342.19.

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