Plaintiff commenced a commercial claims action in this court seeking $3,475 in damages from the defendants for their alleged failure to pay for services rendered for work that took place in April, 2023 at defendant's premises. The details of that work will be discussed below. A hearing on this matter was held on September 29, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. The principal for plaintiff, Gary Wood, was present and proceeded pro se. Defendant, Heather Browne, was present and also proceeded pro se. Defendant Kevin Browne was not present at the hearing.

The Court heard the testimony of the witnesses and had the opportunity to assess their credibility. After a thorough review of the testimony and evidence, the Court's findings and determination are set forth herein.

In sum and substance, Gary Wood testified that he contracted with the defendants to do certain bathroom work at their premises located at 167 Wilkes Street, Beacon, New York. The discussions began in September, 2022 and continued through the winter. Pursuant to their agreement, the defendants would supply the materials and plaintiff would do the bathroom installation and related plumbing work. In reference to the materials, Mr. Wood indicated that defendants went to N&S Supply to order the same. Mr. Wood entered into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit "1" a quote from N&S dated October 29, 2022. Mr. Wood described this as the quote that was given to defendants that did not contain his contractor's discount. Mr. Wood also entered into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit "2" a quote from N&S also dated October 29, 2022 which is for the same materials but includes his contractor's discount. The work Mr. Wood was hired to perform was detailed in a December 20, 2022 proposal which was also entered into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit "3." The "lump sum cost" contained in the proposal was $3,475.00.

Mr. Wood testified that the defendants agreed to the proposal and on April 4th and 5th, 2023 his company performed the work specified in the agreement. Mr. Wood testified that at the defendant's request they went back to the property to fix the mount for the handheld shower [*2]wand around May 5th, 2023. Otherwise, he felt there were no issues with their work and on May 11, 2023 he sent an invoice to defendant, Heather Browne. Mr. Wood testified that he did not hear back from Ms. Browne so he re-sent her the invoice. On May 30, 2023 Mr. Wood received a text from her in which she identified some issues that needed to be addressed. Several text messages between the parties was entered into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit "4." Mr. Wood testified that although some of the issues were not the result of the work he performed at the premises he was willing to address them and advised the defendant of his willingness to do so. He testified, however, that Ms. Browne would not allow him access to the premises to make any repairs. In his opinion, his company performed the agreed upon work and he was willing to address any of defendant's concerns but she has refused to allow him access and refuses to pay him. On cross-examination, Mr. Wood testified that he did not remember Ms. Browne's request for an itemized invoice and he would have provided one if asked.

Plaintiff's second witness was an individual named Charles Wood. He testified that he did the plumbing work for this job including modifying the mount for the shower wand and to his knowledge there were no issues with the work.

Plaintiff's third witness was an individual named Samuel Valdovinos. He testified that he did the carpentry work for this job including installing the shower panels and the sheet rock repairs. To his knowledge there not any issues with the work.

Defendant Heather Browne testified on her own behalf. In sum and substance, Ms. Browne testified that there were several issues with Plaintiff's work and described it as not meticulous. Specifically, Ms. Browne stated that there are several gaps in the shower that have not been caulked including at the base of the shower where the pan touches the walls. She testified that there are also gaps in the shower walls themselves and where the shower closure ends and meets the wall. Ms. Browne stated that there are gaps in the molding and at the door jamb going to the bathroom. She also claimed that the plaintiff damaged the floors outside of the bathroom. In support of her testimony she entered several photographs into evidence. Defendant's Exhibit "A" is a series of five photographs which depict the shower. Defendant's Exhibit "B" is a series of three photographs which depict the shower walls with no caulk. Defendant's Exhibit "C" is a series of six photographs which depict the damaged trim and caulk buildup on certain surfaces. Defendant's Exhibit "D" is a series of two photographs which depict the damage to the floor in the hallway. Ms. Browne testified that she brought up these issues with the plaintiff through text message and stated that she wanted to be at the house when he came back to do the work. She stated that the plaintiff was scheduled to come to her house and address the issues one day in July, 2023 but on that day he did not show up. Ms. Browne also testified that she advised the plaintiff that she needed an itemized bill for the insurance company however he failed to provide one. On cross-examination, Ms. Browne acknowledged that she did not have any text messages where she advised plaintiff that she needed an itemized bill.

A commercial claims court is generally not "bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence," and all that is required is that proceedings be conducted "in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law." (Uniform City Court Act "UCCA" §1804-A). The Plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to both liability and damages and must prove their claim by a preponderance of the [*3]evidence (Clark v. Brownell, 2018 NY Slip Op 51247(U) [Glens Falls City Court, 2018]). With regard to issues of credibility, the court is given substantial deference because it has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses thereby affording it a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. (Hirsh v. Almeida, 17 Misc 3d 131(A) [App. Term 2nd Dep't 2007]).

The evidence established that plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff would perform plumbing and bathroom installation work at the defendants' residence. The scope of that work was outlined in a December 20, 2022 proposal and the agreed upon cost for the work was $3,475.00. Pursuant to that proposal, the work involved: 1) installing three ball valves in the basement to separate the back bath; 2) installing a shower valve and hand wand in the shower with the materials supplied by the owner; 3) installing a new toilet which was to be supplied by owner; 4) installing the shower pan and connecting it to the drain; 5) installing the shower walls; 6) supplying and installing sheetrock for the walls outside the shower and preparing them for paint; and 7) supplying and installing sheetrock for the walls in hallway and preparing them for paint. Plaintiff performed the work as outlined in the proposal and went back to fix an issue with the mount for the shower wand. On May 11, 2023 and May 18, 2023 Mr. Wood sent the sent Ms. Wood copies of the invoice requesting payment. On May 30, 2023 defendant advised Mr. Wood of some minor issues with the work. Specifically, defendant asked if he had the pieces of (missing) molding, she noted a slight gap between the walls and shower and asked if the gaps needed to be caulked, and asked if she could scrape off the caulk that was on the bedroom door. In response, Mr. Wood offered to remedy the problems. The Court credits Mr. Wood's testimony that the issues raised in defendant's May 30th text message were for items that he was willing to fix or that were not part of the work he was contracted to perform. The Court also credits his testimony that the shower was not in the condition depicted in the photos when they finished their work. Contrary to Ms. Browne's, testimony the pictures show that the shower has been used for some purpose as the walls and floor have dirt or other stains on them. Ms. Browne made no mention of any issues with the installation of the ball valves, shower valves, toilet, and shower pan either in the text messages or during her testimony at trial. Plaintiff performed his obligations under the agreement and the defendants has refused to pay for his services. Furthermore, any issues raised by Ms. Browne about the quality of the work are not substantial and plaintiff was willing to address them.

For the reasons stated above, it is the finding of the Court that substantial justice is best served by judgment being granted in favor of Plaintiff in the sum of $3,475.00, plus court costs.

This shall constitute the decision and order of the Court.