| Flores v Dana's Superfix Auto Repairs, Inc. |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 52072(U) [66 Misc 3d 131(A)] |
| Decided on December 13, 2019 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Stephen David Fink, Esq., for appellant. Ovidio M. Flores, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Tracy A. Catapano-Fox, J.), entered January 17, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover damages resulting from defendant's allegedly faulty repairs to his vehicle. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.
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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584, 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).
Here, plaintiff bore the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence (see Ellis v Collegetown Plaza, 301 AD2d 758, 758 [2003]; Naclerio v Adjunct Faculty Assn., 1 Misc 3d 135[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51644[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]). To establish his alleged damages, plaintiff was required either to submit expert testimony or to produce "[a]n itemized bill or invoice . . . or two itemized estimates" for repairs in order to make a prima facie showing of the reasonable value and necessity of such repairs (see CCA 1804; Torres v Cosmopolitan Assoc., LLC, 27 Misc 3d 134[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50717[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Lopez v Dobler Chevrolet, Inc., 16 Misc 3d 137[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51738[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Plaintiff did not introduce any expert testimony. While the trial transcript indicates that plaintiff showed the Civil Court a series of receipts, they are not included in the record, and it is undisputed that the receipts were not admitted into evidence. In addition, the transcript indicates that parts of the testimony were inaudible. In these circumstances, we are unable to determine whether the items plaintiff had in court were adequate to establish that plaintiff had sustained [*2]damages caused by defendant or the amount of the damages, if any (see Valle v Haimowitz, 44 Misc 3d 141[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51304[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.
PESCE, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.