Azteca Fence, Inc. v Prato

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th And 10th Judicial Districts

Decided on March 19, 2026

2024-1328 W C

Present: : Joseph R. Conway, J.P., Maria S. Vazquez-Doles, Maureen T. Liccione, JJ.

Bleakey Platt & Schmidt, LLP (Stephen J. Brown of counsel), for appellant. Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner, LLP (Michael N. Romano of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Lynette V. Spaulding, J.), entered December 3, 2024. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,600 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the City Court for a new trial before a different judge.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover the principal sum of $3,600, representing an alleged outstanding balance from construction work it provided for defendant and his wife. Defendant asserted an affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction in that his final payment by check was marked "Paid in full" and accepted by plaintiff. Defendant also counterclaimed to recover the cost of correcting plaintiff's purportedly defective work. A nonjury trial took place on July 2, 2024 and September 3, 2024, during which the parties' counsels gave opening statements, which resembled oral arguments. Plaintiff's owner, Mr. Gayosso, testified on direct examination that, while work was being performed on defendant's property, rotted wood was discovered that required repair and that an estimate was given based [*2]on the amount of rotted wood that was visible at the time. He averred that defendant was notified that the full extent of the rotted wood was unknown but that defendant had agreed to pay the cost of the full repair. Defendant's counsel argued that defendant did not agree to pay for any work on the rotted wood beyond the extent indicated on the estimate. Screenshots of text messages between the parties and copies of estimates, invoices, and cancelled checks were entered into evidence. Before Mr. Gayosso's direct examination concluded, the matter was adjourned. However, prior to the following return date, in a decision dated December 3, 2024, the City Court (Lynette V. Spaulding, J.) awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,600 because plaintiff's acceptance of defendant's check marked "Paid in full" did not constitute "a subsequent agreement between the parties," and dismissed defendant's counterclaim for "lack of proof." A judgment was entered pursuant to that decision on December 3, 2024.

In a commercial 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" (UCCA 1807-A [a]; see UCCA 1804-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

A review of the record indicates that substantial justice was not done between the parties (see UCCA 1804-A, 1807-A [a]). Although the procedures in the Commercial Claims Part are relaxed, much like those of the Small Claims Court, "the rules of substantive law must be followed and a person's constitutional right to due process of law includes the basic right to cross-examine witnesses" (Graves v American Express, 175 Misc 2d 285, 286 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1997]; see Mujica v Jerome-Human, 65 Misc 3d 158[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51978[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). Here, the court did not allow defendant the opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff or to properly present his case on his counterclaim, as was his right pursuant to substantive law (see Memenza v Cole, 131 AD3d 1020, 1023 [2015]; Akinde v Vernon Manor Coop Section 1, 85 Misc 3d 134[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50477[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2025]; Mujica v Jerome-Human, 2019 NY Slip Op 51978[U]). Consequently, a new trial is necessary at which plaintiff will be afforded a full opportunity to present its case and defendant will be able to present his defense, including the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction (see Conboy, McKay, Bachman & Kendall v Armstrong, 110 AD2d 1042 [1985]; cf. C. Itoh & Co. (Am.) v Honerkamp Co., 99 AD2d 417 [1984]), and his counterclaim.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the City Court for a new trial before a different judge.

CONWAY, J.P., VAZQUEZ-DOLES and LICCIONE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: March 19, 2026