WEXLER v. PRADA USA CORP (2025)

In this small claims case for breach of warranty, Claimant alleges that he purchased shoes from Defendant's subsidiary (“Church's”) that wore down and Defendant reneged on its alleged lifetime warranty. A trial was held on the evening of August 5, 2025, and the case was dismissed.

The trial was initially scheduled for December 2, 2024, but was adjourned at Claimant's request to March 31, 2025. At the March trial date, the Court adjourned trial once again at Claimant's request to August 5, 2025 and noted that Claimant must bring all the evidence he needed to prove his case. At the beginning of trial on August 5, 2025, the Court asked the parties if they had all the proposed evidence they need to either prove the claim or defend against the claim and were otherwise ready to proceed. The parties stipulated that by reporting that they are ready to proceed with trial, they assume the risk of any negative inferences the Court may draw from missing evidence. All parties reported that they were ready.

EVIDENCE

Claimant testified that, in March 2023, he purchased a pair of shoes from Claudio Miceli, a retail store in Italy, that Claimant testified is an authorized sales agent for Church's brand shoes. A salesperson at the store induced Claimant to purchase the shoes by allegedly telling him that he can get the soles of the shoes repaired any time and there's a lifetime warranty, which is on the company's website. The price on the box indicated that it was on sale for €830, but Claimant purchased it for €630. After six months of wearing the shoes, the soles deteriorated to the extent that Claimant nearly slipped and fell. Claimant made a warranty claim with Church's but it declined to replace the shoes without providing a reason.

Claimant provided the Court with a packet of documents, which the Court enters into evidence as Claimant's exhibit 1. The documents included portions of email exchanges between Claimant and Church's from January 27, 2024 through April 3, 2025 (see Claimant's exhibit 1). The documents also include an email Claimant sent to the Court with hyperlinks to Church's General Terms and Conditions of Sale, and its Repair Guide (id.).

Claimant estimated damages at $3,600 due to the salesman's statement and the manufacturer's website allegedly indicating a lifetime warranty, and his belief that $3,600 represent the value of a lifetime of shoe purchases.

For its part, Defendant, through Mr. Kinsey's testimony, denied any knowledge that Claimant purchased the shoes. Mr. Kinsey testified that, although Claimant possesses the shoes, since Claimant had no proof of purchase, he could not determine where Claimant got the shoes. Mr. Kinsey further testified that Claimant showed him something on his phone indicating that something was purchased from a store, but that the price was different than what was shown in the photo of the shoe box (id.).

ANALYSIS

“The material elements for breach of express warranty include (1) a material representation expressly made about the product by defendant, (2) the truthfulness of this representation was relied upon by plaintiff, (3) the product did not live up to the representation and (4) plaintiff suffered damages as a result of a breach of the express warranty” (Flores v Youm, 69 Misc 3d 1216[A] [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2020] citing CBS v Ziff-Davis, 75 NY2d 496 [1990]). Issues regarding warranties are within the area of contract law; claims for breach of warranty are, in effect, claims for breach of contract (see CBS, Inc., 75 NY2d at 503).

Here, Claimant failed to prove that Defendant made an express promise to repair and replace the subject shoes for a lifetime. None of the documents he provided contained such a warranty (see Claimant's exhibit 1). The General Terms and Conditions of Sale for Church's linked to Claimant's email to the Court applies to online purchases only (id. at ¶1.1 [“The sale of “Church's” branded products executed remotely through this website accessed at URL address https://www.church-footwear.com/eu/en.html (hereinafter referred to as the “Website”) is governed by the following General Terms and Conditions of Sale.”]. The Repairs Guide for Church's, a portion of which was included in Claimant's exhibit 1 and the full guide was also linked to Claimant's email to the Court (id.), merely advertises a paid refurbishment service that Church's provides. The Repairs Guide does not apply here because Claimant did not use the refurbishment service. The emails Claimant provide also do not reference any warranties (id.).

Since there is no documentary evidence supporting Claimant's assertion about an express warranty, the only remaining evidence is the verbal assurances the salesperson at the retail store allegedly made to Claimant to induce him to purchase the shoes. The Court cannot rely on those statements because they are hearsay (see Zelnik v Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., 242 AD2d 227, 228 [1st Dept 1997] [“No judgment, even in a small claims action, can rest entirely on hearsay evidence.”] see also Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intl. Fin. Co., B.V., 18 AD3d 286, 286 [1st Dept 2005] [Documentary evidence supplementing hearsay statements are admissible.]). In either case, according to Claimant's testimony, the salesperson allegedly directed Claimant to Church's website during their interaction and Claimant reviewed the terms before purchasing the shoes.

Dismissal also is warranted because Claimant did not have a receipt or proof of purchase. He had a bank statement but only had it on his phone, which is inaccessible to the Court. He also had a photo of a shoe box (see Claimant's exhibit 1), but there was no date indicating the date of purchase nor any indication that a purchase was made (i.e., no stamp on the box marking the item ‘paid’). Claimant admitted that the photo was not timestamped to indicate the date of purchase. Claimant stated that there is a code on the box that can be looked up online, however, Claimant did not look up the code himself to present proof of purchase to the Court.

Claimant asserted that he did not need to provide proof of purchase because he testified that he purchased it and Defendant did not deny that Claimant was trying to make a claim on the manufacturer's warranty. However, at trial Defendant directly disputed that there was any evidence that Claimant purchased the shoes. Proof of purchase is a material issue (not a collateral one) in this case not merely because it is a disputed point of fact but because of a more rudimentary point: an express warranty based on a sale only applies when a sale occurs. Since Claimant could not prove that a sales transaction occurred, he is unable to show that the parties entered a contract where Defendant made certain promises, such as to warranty their shoes (see Hicksville Dry Cleaners, Inc. v Stanley Fastening Sys., L.P., 37 AD3d 218, 218 [1st Dept 2007] [Defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed because, “Plaintiff's allegation that it purchased the allegedly defective product from defendant is flatly contradicted by defendant's sales records, and, absent any evidence in plaintiff's opposition tending to substantiate such allegation, the cause of action for breach of contract was properly dismissed.” (internal citations omitted)].

Additionally, Claimant's testimony was not credible for several reasons (see Torres v Sedgwick Ave. Dignity Devs. LLC, 85 Misc 3d 139(A) [App Term, 1st Dept 2025] [“On a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses.” (Internal citation omitted.)]). Claimant did not have a reliable recollection of the facts underlying his claim. He testified that Defendant denied his warranty claim without a reason. Contrary to Claimant's testimony, Church's responded to Claimant's demand to apply the warranty by email dated February 1, 2024 that “the issue with [Claimant's] shoes is the result of an [sic] ordinary wear and tear.” Additionally, when asked to provide proof of purchase, Claimant's demeanor and words were defensive and argumentative, frequently challenging the Court's legal authority. By contrast, when asked for other information that was seemingly favorable to Claimant's case, Claimant was forthcoming and compliant.

Lastly, the claim would otherwise be dismissed because Claimant failed to present a reasonable estimate of damages (see Robin v NYC Excellent Improvements Inc., 86 Misc 3d 126(A) [App Term, 1st Dept 2025] [Small claims case must be supported by “competent evidence of damages.”]).

The Court also notes that, despite the multiple appearances on this case and the Claimant's stipulation that he was ready for trial and accepted the risk that the case would be dismissed if key evidence was missing, Claimant requested an adjournment after submitting evidence in support of his case in chief and once the Court made clear that he did not present any proof of purchase. The case history notwithstanding, the Court offered Claimant an opportunity to adjourn the case and mark it final so that he can print out whatever proof of purchase he needs to make a prima facie claim. Claimant rejected the offer and countered by requesting to discontinue the action without prejudice to bring a plenary action under General Business Law § 349 (GBL § 349 prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state” and GBL § 349(h) permits a private right.). The Court denied Claimant's request because Defendant would not consent to it and any further delay in resolving this case would cause undue prejudice to Defendant. Lastly, as indicated above, the claim would be dismissed even if Claimant provided proof of purchase because Claimant failed to meet the basic elements of a claim for breach of an express warranty.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court change Claimant's mailing address in the Court's file to 4193 Flatrock Drive, Suite 2000, Room 439, Riverside, CA 92505; and it is further

ORDERED that the claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Claimant's failure to meet his prima facie burden.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

L. Austin D'Souza, J.