Makayla DeRosa, Plaintiff, v. Jade Suarez, Defendant. (2026)

Plaintiff having commenced this small claims proceeding by filing of a claim on May 27, 2026 alleging that "[d]efendant signed a written promissory note agreement for the purchase . . . of a vehicle and agreed to make payments[, but then] stopped making payments, breached the agreement, blocked communication, and still owes $2,800 under the signed contract," and defendant having thereafter been served, and

The parties having appeared on the return date of June 30, 2026, with each party appearing pro se,

The Court having heard testimony from plaintiff on her own behalf, and from defendant and Rosina Ossorio, defendant's mother, on defendant's behalf, and the Court having had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to make credibility determinations, and

The Court having thoroughly reviewed the following submitted by plaintiff during the hearing:

• Vehicle Sales Agreement dated May 1, 2026, marked as Exhibit A;

• Promissory Note dated May 1, 2026, marked as Exhibit B;

• Text message exchange, marked as Exhibit C;

• Cash App screenshot, marked as Exhibit D;

• Text message exchange, marked as Exhibit E, and

The Court having thoroughly reviewed the following submitted by defendant

during the hearing:

• Written statement in response to claim, and

The Court having invited and considered a post-hearing submission from defendant which included:

• Photograph of invoice from Firestone, marked as #1;

• Photograph of Autozone receipt, marked as #2;

• Certificate reflecting failure of vehicle to pass inspection, marked as #3;

• Written statement previously submitted by defendant, marked as #4 and #5;

• Additional written statement from defendant, marked as #6;

• Photograph of odometer, marked as #7;

• Photograph of second Autozone receipt, marked as #8;

• Additional written statement from defendant, marked as #9;

• Text message exchange, marked as #10;

• "Bob's transmission codes," marked as #11, #12, #13 and #14;

•Photograph of second invoice from Firestone, marked as #15;

• Written statement from Jose Suarez, defendant's father, marked as #16, and

The Court having further considered a response from plaintiff to this post-hearing submission which included:

• Written statement with attached text message exchange, and

The Court having applied the relevant standard for small claims proceedings as set forth in Uniform Justice Court Act § 1804, namely "to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law,"

NOW, upon due deliberation the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Plaintiff contends that on May 1, 2026 she sold her 2008 Hyundai Elantra GPS Sedan to defendant for the sum of $3,000.00. At the time of sale, the vehicle had approximately 185,405 miles on it. Plaintiff has submitted copies of a Vehicle Sales Agreement (hereinafter Agreement) and Promissory Note (hereinafter Note), both of which require weekly payments of $200.00 from defendant to plaintiff beginning on May 8, 2026 and continuing until the $3,000.00 is paid in full. The Agreement and Note appear to be signed by both parties. According to plaintiff, defendant made the first payment of $200.00 via Cash App but made no further payments and remains in possession of the vehicle. Plaintiff is seeking to recover the balance of $2,800.00 due under the Agreement and Note.

Defendant has a strikingly different version of events. Defendant denies ever signing the Agreement or Note and contends, instead, that the parties had a verbal agreement relative to the sale of the vehicle. More specifically, defendant contends that she verbally agreed to purchase the vehicle from plaintiff for $3,000.00 on April 30, 2026 and gave plaintiff $2,800.00 in cash on that date, then paying the remaining $200.00 via Cash App on May 8, 2026. Defendant further contends that the vehicle did not pass inspection following the sale and she has had to spend a substantial amount of money on repairs, submitting copies of various invoices for these repairs.

With both parties agreeing that the purchase price of the vehicle was $3,000.00, the primary issue is whether defendant paid the $2,800.00 in cash— or if such amount remains outstanding. In this regard, the Court found plaintiff's evidence and testimony to be more credible. When asked where she got the $2,800.00 in cash, defendant stated that she had saved the money. She failed to provide any further details, however, despite being given ample opportunity to do so — even after the conclusion of the hearing. She did not provide proof of any bank withdrawals. She did not recount the work done to earn the money. She did not say that the money was a gift. She provided no information whatsoever. To the extent that cash cannot be traced, defendant's version of events is certainly convenient — and given the lack of proof, the Court is not persuaded by it.

That being said, the Court is not entirely convinced that defendant in fact signed the Agreement and Note. In this regard, defendant's signature appears on an invoice she submitted from Firestone (Photograph #1 in her post-hearing submission). While the Court does not purport to be a handwriting expert, the signature on the invoice is quite different from that on the Agreement and Note. Further, plaintiff does not dispute the several issues defendant has had with the vehicle — or the money that defendant has spent on repairs. Indeed, shortly after the sale plaintiff attempted to help defendant by sending her to a mechanic plaintiff knew so the repairs would be less expensive.

"Courts have taken judicial notice that Kelley Blue Book is 'a report of a regularly organized stock or commodity market published in a . . . periodical of general circulation or in an official publication or trade journal' " (Rhody v Empson, 46 Misc 3d 1227[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50315[U], *4 [Ithaca City Ct 2015], quoting CPLR 4533; see Dobson v Saal, 31 Misc 3d 1228[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50886[U], *3 [Civ Ct, Kings County]). Here, the Kelley Blue Book value of a 2008 Hyundai Elantra GLS Sedan with 185,405 miles in fair condition and priced with standard equipment is listed as $1,215-$1,915 (see Kelley Blue Book, https://www.kbb.com/hyundai/elantra/2008/ [last accessed August 19, 2026]). Taking judicial notice of such amount, the Court finds that the subject vehicle — which was in less than fair condition at the time of sale — was worth $1,000.00.

Given the questions surrounding whether the Agreement and Note were in fact signed by defendant, the Court hereby sets aside the $3,000.00 sale price and instead utilizes a fair market value of $1,000.00 to calculate damages. Accounting for the payment of $200.00 made by defendant via Cash App, the Court finds that defendant owes plaintiff an additional $800.00. Defendant is hereby directed to pay such amount to plaintiff within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order.

To the extent not addressed herein, the parties' remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff's claim is granted to the extent that defendant owes plaintiff a remaining balance of $800.00 for the vehicle, which amount shall be paid to plaintiff within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's claim is granted to the extent that defendant owes plaintiff a remaining balance of $800.00 for the vehicle, which amount shall be paid to plaintiff within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order.

DATED:August 24, 2026

Clifton Park, New York

ENTER:

HON. JENNIFER P. JERAM

TOWN JUSTICE

Jennifer P. Jeram, J.