Keitz Joseph, Plaintiff, v. Emmanuel Joseph, Defendant. (2026)

This matter is a Small Claims action brought by plaintiff to recover damages in the amount of $3,000.00 for misrepresenting the actual mileage on a vehicle plaintiff purchased from defendant. The action was tried before the Court on July 27, 2026. Plaintiff and defendant each testified in his own behalf. The following exhibits were offered by plaintiff and admitted into evidence by the Court: Plt. Exh. "1": the title to the subject vehicle; and Plt. Exh. "2": a vehicle report from "efaq.com."

Plaintiff testified that he purchased the subject vehicle, a used 2013 Honda Accord, from defendant on October 27, 2025 for the sum of $7,500.00. He further testified that on that date the odometer reading on the automobile was 105,027 miles and that defendant had advertised it to be such. The Certificate of Title issued to plaintiff reflects that mileage. Plaintiff testified that subsequent to his purchase of the vehicle he obtained an online vehicle report from efaq.com which indicated that the actual mileage was 205,025 miles. Lastly, plaintiff testified that on October 29, 2026 he complained to defendant about the discrepancy for the first time.

Defendant testified that he purchased the vehicle at an auction three to four weeks prior to the sale to plaintiff. He further testified that after he purchased the vehicle he paid $2,800 to have repairs made to it. Defendant denied having any knowledge that the odometer reading was not accurate.

Plaintiff's claim sounds in common law fraud. Equally applicable would be a cause of action under General Business Law § 349 (New York's Deceptive Practices Act), as well as a claim under the Federal Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. § 32710 (a), both of which statutes provide for a private right of action. The elements of common-law fraud "a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by [the] defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury." Pasternack v. Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings, 27 NY3d 817, 827, 37 N.Y.S.3d 750, 59 N.E.3d 485 (2016).

A common element of all three causes of action is the requirement of an intent to defraud. It is to be noted that actual knowledge by the seller of an inaccurate odometer reading is not necessary to establish the element of intent — the element may be proved constructively, i.e., by showing gross negligence or reckless disregard for the truth. See, e.g. Mayline Enterprises, Inc. v. Milea Truck Sales Corp., 641 F.Supp.2d 304 (S.D.NY 2009).

After due deliberation hereon, it is the decision of the Court that the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing either actual or constructive fraud on the part of defendant by clear and convincing evidence. Ferreyra v. Arroyo, 35 NY3d 127 (2020) (" the bar for establishing fraud is a high one. 'Fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence'— a standard that has been defined as proof that 'makes it highly probable that the alleged activity actually occurred.' "). In the present case, plaintiff produced no evidence of actual knowledge of the mileage discrepancy on the part of defendant. Likewise, plaintiff did not demonstrate that defendant should have known of the discrepancy or that he recklessly disregarded evidence of odometer tampering. (Cf., Mayline Enterprises, Inc., supra, where defendant's own service records reflecting a much higher mileage than indicated on the odometer had been left in the glove compartment of the subject vehicle.)

Accordingly, it is hereby

ADJUDGED, that the complaint herein is dismissed, without costs or disbursements to either party.

Dated: October 1, 2026

Garnerville, New York

ENTER.

Hon. GEORGE G. COFFINAS,

Town Justice, Town of Haverstraw

George G. Coffinas, J.