| Bilello v Leahy |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51447(U) [57 Misc 3d 144(A)] |
| Decided on October 26, 2017 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Gina Bilello and Larry Bilello, Appellants,
against
William Leahy, Respondent.
Gina Bilello and Larry Bilello, appellants pro se. William Leahy, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Cornwall, Orange County (Francis Navarra, J.), entered August 8, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $500.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs and defendant live on a street where access to their homes is via a private road known as John Street, in the Town of Cornwall, New York. Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action seeking to recover the principal sum of $1,654.67, representing defendant's alleged share of the cost of repairing and maintaining the private road. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had breached a maintenance agreement for the road. The facts adduced at a nonjury trial established that defendant was not a party to the road maintenance agreement, that plaintiffs had hired contractors to repave and plow the road, and that defendant had never paid any money towards those services. Following the trial, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $500. Plaintiffs appeal on the ground of inadequacy.
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, 126 [2000]).
There is no dispute that defendant was not a party to the road maintenance agreement. Consequently, defendant could not be held liable for breaching that contract. Moreover, plaintiffs did not establish the elements of a cause of action to recover under an unjust enrichment claim (see Mobarak v Mowad, 117 AD3d 998 [2014]). Thus, substantial justice does not require that the award to plaintiff be increased. We note that, as defendant did not cross-appeal from the judgment, we are unable to grant him any affirmative relief (see Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57 [1983]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.