Carol Evans and Julian Bethel, appellants pro se.

Dave Knott and New Generation Automobile Repair LLC, respondents pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (David W. Wright, J.), entered December 10, 2021. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

Plaintiffs brought this small claims action in June 2020, seeking to recover the principal sum of $5,000, which, they contended, was the value of their vehicle. At a nonjury trial it was uncontested that, in 2019, plaintiffs brought their vehicle to defendants for repair. Plaintiffs supplied parts, including a replacement engine, to defendants. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the price for defendants' services, during which time defendants retained possession of the vehicle. Despite plaintiffs' demand for the return of their vehicle, it has not been returned to them.

It is undisputed that, after defendants refused to return the vehicle to plaintiffs, the license [*2]plates were removed. Defendant Dave Knott testified that, because plaintiffs owed defendants money, defendants had "put the vehicle on the street," and that defendants no longer had the vehicle. Plaintiffs introduced into evidence a Kelley Blue Book valuation for a vehicle of their year, make and model, and repair bills they had incurred shortly prior to the time when they entrusted their vehicle to defendants. Plaintiffs also claimed consequential damages. Following the trial, the action was dismissed.

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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Defendant New Generation Automobile Repair, LLC held plaintiffs' vehicle as a bailee for hire (see Hoffman v M & C Getty, Inc., 29 Misc 3d 137[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52024[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; 62 NY Jur 2d, Garages § 95). As it was undisputed that defendants failed either to safeguard or return plaintiffs' vehicle, under the particular circumstances presented, plaintiffs made out a prima facie case of negligence and/or conversion (see I.C.C. Metals v Municipal Warehouse Co., 50 NY2d 657, 662 [1980]).

Once liability is established, damages may be awarded based on proof of the actual value of the vehicle at the time of the loss (see Fantis Foods v Standard Importing Co., 49 NY2d 317, 326 [1980]; Scotti v Barrett, 166 AD3d 698, 699 [2018]; Franklin Corp. v Prahler, 91 AD3d 49, 54 [2011] ["It is well settled that the purpose of awarding damages in a tort action is to make the plaintiff whole"]; Allanson v Cummings, 81 AD2d 16 [1981]). While plaintiffs submitted a Kelley Blue Book valuation at trial, it is insufficient proof of damages without supporting evidence as to the mileage on the vehicle and its condition at the time of the loss (see Hindi v Wajngurt-Levy, 68 Misc 3d 128[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50939[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; cf. Schussheim v Snitkoff, 55 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50732[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]). However, plaintiffs provided some proof of the value of the vehicle before the loss and, even where actual damages are not proved, upon establishing a conversion, punitive damages may be awarded "if it is proven that a defendant acted with 'actual malice involving intentional wrongdoing, or that [its] conduct amounted to a wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of right of possession' " (Kante v Queens Medallion Leasing, Inc., 46 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50087[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015],quoting Irving Land Corp. v Richard & Sons, 262 AD2d 286, 286 [1999]). Thus, in the circumstances presented, we find that substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807) requires a new trial.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

GARGUILO, P.J., EMERSON and McCORMACK, JJ., concur.