CRUZ v. BACKELL (2022)

Parties, Claim, Trial

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 13, 2021, seeking $5,000 in damages from the Defendant for failure to complete work pursuant to a construction contract. The matter proceeded to trial on February 10, 2022.

Facts

The Plaintiff appeared and testified that she paid the Defendant $6,929 to install siding, windows, repair her porch, and other work pursuant to a contract between the parties executed on 9/20/2021 and 9/25/2021. Plaintiff called Elizabeth Pritchard who testified that she gave Plaintiff the referral for the Defendant, that there was an issue that involved contacting the codes department, testified about various text messages, and that the Defendant stopped showing up to work. Plaintiff testified that the Defendant worked on the property for 8 days (Gene every day for 8 days; Loren for 2 hours on 1 day; and two other employees on and off for 8 days). On the eighth day one of the workers showed up, told the Plaintiff she was being scammed, grabbed some tools and left. Plaintiff testified that she spoke with a couple other workers who confirmed that the other worker had quit. Plaintiff testified that she confronted Defendant, was not able to resolve the dispute, and directed that further communications go through her husband.

The Plaintiff admitted the following exhibits:

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #1: Contract between Plaintiff and Defendant

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #2: Plaintiff's timeline of events

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #3: cashed check for $6,929

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #4: pictures of the front and sides of Plaintiff's home

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #5: text messages with Manny

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #6: text messages with Defendant (from Ms. Pritchard)

• Plaintiff's Exhibit #7: text messages between Plaintiff and Defendant

The Defendant appeared and testified that he had a disagreement with Plaintiff about when the windows would arrive which ended in the parties telling each other to direct further inquiries to their respective attorneys. Thereafter, Defendant testified that he had a conversation with Plaintiff's husband and agreed to resume work, but then didn't continue working because of various negative social media posts by the Plaintiff about the Defendant. The Defendant submitted receipts of the materials purchased and that his employee's labor was valued at $2,200. Defendant denied taking the Plaintiff's materials from the worksite; he explained that the materials he put in his truck were from a separate order on a separate worksite.

The Defendant admitted the following exhibits:

• Defendant's Exhibit #A: receipts from Lowes and Ilion Lumber totaling $196.07

• Defendant's Exhibit #B: receipt from Rome Lumber totaling $3,214.93

• Defendant's Exhibit #C: receipt from Ilion Lumber totaling $248.14

• Defendant's Exhibit #D: text messages between Plaintiff and Defendant

• Defendant's Exhibit #E: printout of Facebook

• Defendant's Exhibit #F: memo from conversation on 10/14/21

• Defendant's Exhibit #G: memo from conversation on 10/16/21

• Defendant's Exhibit #H: text messages from Shauna

• Defendant's Exhibit #I: letter from Attorney General

• Defendant's Exhibit #J: payroll memo

Discussion

The Plaintiff seeks from Defendant the jurisdictional amount of this Court ($5,000) for a breach of a contract for uncompleted work where Plaintiff paid $6,929 on the contract. It is undisputed that the Defendant did not complete the work for which he was contracted and was paid $6,929 (approximately 2/3 of the contract price) to perform. Both parties gave different reasons for the breach of the contract. The Court finds that the reason for the breach is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Defendant was paid $6,929 to start a project that he did not complete. With that background, this Court must decide this matter “in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law” (UCCA § 1804).

Although Plaintiff is seeking the full amount of the contract subject to this Court's jurisdictional limit, such a remedy would put her in a position of unjust enrichment because she would essentially get the benefit of the building materials and labor for free at the Defendant's expense (see: Mercy Flight Cent., Inc. v. Kondolf, 41 Misc 3d 483, 493 [Canandaigua City Ct 2013]). It is clear that whatever judgment this Court makes must also take into account the Defendant's claim to receive reimbursement for the labor and materials expended on the legal theory of quantum meruit (YCA Corp. v. Pistone, 2002 NY Slip Op. 40454[U] citing Matter of Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655; Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Matter of Papadopoulos v. Goldstein, Goldstein & Rikon, 283 AD2d 649).

It is undisputed that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant $6,929. There is, however, a dispute about two things: the value of the materials delivered to the Plaintiff as well as the value of the labor performed by the Defendant.

With respect to the value of the materials that were delivered to the Plaintiff's property, the Plaintiff can only speculate regarding any difference between what materials appear on the receipts and what was delivered to her home and what ended up in the Defendant's truck. The Plaintiff bears the burden of prosecuting and proving her case with credible evidence. Plaintiff could have (but did not) present evidence of an inventory of the materials on the ground and materials attached to her home. If this was outside of her area of expertise, she could have (but did not) have a contractor submit an estimate with respect to what materials were on her property and what materials were affixed to her home. The Plaintiff also could have (but did not) provide this Court with estimates from contractors to show what it would cost to complete the job. Had this evidence been presented, the Court could then make a determination about whether an award for the difference between the contract price and the price to complete the work following the Defendant's breach would be proper. Such a decision would also have to take into consideration the Plaintiff's testimony that the Defendant's fee was lower than she expected after speaking with some of her friends about the costs of similar work. This Court can not render judgments based on speculation. Due to the foregoing, the Court finds that substantial justice dictates that the dispute with respect to the price of the building materials supplied by the Defendant should be resolved in favor of the Defendant who submitted documentary evidence that the materials cost $3,659.14.

The other dispute is about the value of the work performed by the Defendant. The Defendant submitted a printout of his payroll at the Plaintiff's worksite. Although Defendant testified that he expended $2,200 in payroll, the Defendant's spreadsheet details $3,898 in payroll expenditures. When questioned about this difference by the Court, the Defendant explained that he excluded his time from the calculation because his fee is earned when the job is completed. However, even after excluding Defendant's $1,000 fee the total payroll would still be $2,898 rather than $2,200. This Court is still perplexed by the difference, but the Defendant remained firm that the correct payroll amount is $2,200 so for these purposes the Court will consider $2,200 to be the amount the Defendant is seeking as the reasonable calculation for the work his laborers performed on the contract. The Plaintiff disagrees with this amount and thinks it should be much less. Plaintiff testified that: Gene worked for 8 days; Loren for 2 hours on 1 day; and two other unknown workers worked on and off during the 8 days.

If the Court takes the work testified by the Plaintiff at the pay rates testified by the Defendant using the lowest rates of pay found on Defendant's payroll memorandum for Unknown Worker #1 ($18 per hour) and Unknown Worker #2 ($20 per hour) for half (4 out of the 8 work days), the following would be the value of the work:

• Gene: 8 hours per day for 8 days is 64 hours times $20 per hour is $1,280

• Loren: 2 hours on 1 day is 2 hours times $30 per hour is $60

• Unknown Worker #1: 8 hours per day for 4 days is 32 hours times $18 per hour is $576

• Unknown Worker #2: 8 hours per day for 4 days is 32 hours times $20 per hour is $$640

This results in a grand total of $2,556. This means that if the Court were to find the Plaintiff's testimony credible with respect to the valuation of the labor, she would recover $356 less than if the Court were to find the Defendant's testimony about the valuation of the labor credible. Due to the foregoing, the Court finds that substantial justice dictates that the Plaintiff should get the benefit of the Defendant's own testimony that that the proper valuation of the labor should be valued at $2,200 (rather than her own testimony which would value the labor at $2,556).

Accordingly the Court finds that substantial justice dictates that the Plaintiff should recover $1,069.86 from the Defendant. This is the amount left over from the $6,929 paid by Plaintiff to the Defendant after deducting the Defendant's expenses of $3,659.14 for materials and $2,200 for labor.

Order

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The judgment is for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the amount of $1,069.86.

2. No costs will be awarded because the Defendant was successful in reducing the amount of the calculated damages.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.

Joshua P. Bannister, J.