Skenerbe Travel Inc, Claimant(s) v. Mihal Monka, Defendant(s) (2026)

In this commercial claims action, claimant Skenderbe Travel Inc., incorrectly listed in the caption as Skenerbe Travel Inc., seeks to recover damages allegedly incurred after defendant disputed the credit card charges for two airline tickets claimant purchased at defendant's request and which defendant and his family members used. A bench trial was held in this matter on August 13, 2026. At trial, claimant was represented by Etleva Kove, the office manager and Vice President of the claimant corporation (see notarized document signed by claimant's president, Albert Kove, dated May 7, 2026). Thus, claimant was properly represented by Ms. Kove (Civil Court Act 1809-A[d]). Defendant was self-represented and testified with the assistance of an Albanian language interpreter. Claimant admitted three documents into evidence and defendant admitted four documents into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence adduced at trial, the Court hereby finds and decides as follows:

There is no dispute that claimant purchased three round-trip tickets for defendant to fly on American Airlines from John F. Kennedy Airport to Tirana, Albania departing June 29, 2023. Based upon an invoice from Kosovatours International a/k/a KTI Travel (KTI), the tickets were issued to defendant Mihal Monka for $1,993.65, Erjola Monka for $1,993.65 and Tefta Monka for $2,140.65 (Claimant's Exhibit 3). According to a letter signed by Agim Alickaj, President of KTI, "Mrs. Etleva Kove, of Skenderbe Travel Inc., is an authorized sub-agent of [KTI]. She sells airline tickets to customers and purchases tickets through our company." Claimant testified that she repaid KTI for these tickets and is currently owed reimbursement from defendant for amounts refunded to him after he successfully disputed the credit card charges for two of the tickets.

Defendant admitted that he purchased the tickets so that he, his wife, and daughter could travel together. Defendant testified that there were issues upon arrival at JFK which required him to present his passport, and other unspecified issues with defendant's tickets which caused delays. Defendant described these issues as "challenging" and stated that his arrival in Tirana was delayed. However, defendant did not provide any evidence demonstrating that these alleged problems were caused by any act or omission of the claimant.

Claimant established that the tickets it purchased at defendant's request were exchanged for new tickets which defendant then used to fly from New York to Tirana and return to the United States. After his return, defendant disputed the credit card charges for two of the three tickets on August 23, 2023, in the amount of $2,140.65 and $1,993.65 as well as agent fees of $110.00 (Defendant's Exhibit 4). Following an investigation, defendant's credit card company credited his account for the charges for the two tickets but not the agent fees. Claimant now seeks reimbursement for those amounts it claims defendant improperly disputed and was credited.

It is not clear to the Court why defendant only disputed charges for two of the three tickets. Defendant's Exhibit 4 includes an email from Etleva Kove, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Passengers traveled and they had a very challenging experience with the airline. The Airline put a Noshow notice in their reservation but they were able to accommodate the passengers with a different flight with more than one stop. The original ticket had only one stop. Since in the system was Noshow their return was cancelled. Due to my diligent work I was checking my Ques [sic] and I found out their return was cancelled. I called the airline many times. I explained to the airline since the passengers traveled how could you cancel their return which does not make sense. I promptly worked to resolve their return and I was able to secure their ticket for the return as well. After the passengers return to US they called me and they told me that they were not late but the airline could not find their tickets in the airport. I told them if the airline was not able to find you tickets how come the airline made an exchange to the original ticket and accommodated you with a different flight, you traveled and you did not pay any fee. I understand that was very challenging travelling many hours in different airports, and I can imagine their frustrations. It was end of June peak of summer travel but I genuinely did my best to provide them with my service it was not my fault that they had hard time traveling they have to understand that the airline is the one that operate the airplane I just provide the tickets and I did my best to find them the best deals available for last days purchasing tickets. I deserve to get paid for my service."

Much of this information was incorporated into claimant's statement of claim, wherein it seeks a judgment of $4,350.00 against the defendant with interest from June 14, 2023.

Claimant's claim sounds in breach of contract. A contract can be entered into orally or in writing, and an oral agreement may be enforceable as long as the terms are clear and definite and the conduct of the parties evinces mutual assent "sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms" (Kramer v Greene, 142 AD3d 438 [1st Dept 2016] citing Matter of Express Indus. & Term. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Transp., 93 NY2d 584, 589, [1999]).

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are as follows: the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance under the contract, the defendant's breach of that contract, and resulting damage (Noto v. Panck, LLC, 228 AD3d 516 [1st Dept 2024]). Based upon the record before the Court, claimant has established that it entered into an oral agreement with defendant to purchase round trip tickets for defendant and his family to fly from New York, New York to Tirana, Albania for which defendant was obligated to pay. Claimant purchased the tickets, defendant exchanged them, used them, and returned. Although defendant initially paid for the original tickets, he then breached the agreement by disputing two of the payments for said tickets.

Moreover, even if claimant had not established the existence of an enforceable oral agreement, recovery under a theory of unjust enrichment would be available. To establish unjust enrichment, plaintiff must show "that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party's expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered" (Kramer v. Greene, 142 AD3d 438 [1st Dept 2016] quoting Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011]). An unjust enrichment claim does not lie where there is an enforceable agreement between the parties (Accurate Copy Serv. of America, Inc. v. Fisk Bldg. Assocs. L.L.C., 72 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2010] citing Singer Asset Fin. Co., LLC v. Melvin, 33 AD3d 355, 358 [2006]).

In turn, defendant failed to establish any cognizable defense to claimant's claims. Defendant has not shown that claimant failed to perform according to the terms of the parties' agreement. Nor has defendant established that he was not enriched at claimant's expense and that it would be just for him to retain the benefit of the tickets, a round trip from New York to Albania for him and his family, for free.

As for damages, claimant is entitled to reimbursement for the two tickets which were refunded back to defendant, in the total amount of $4,134.30. Claimant has failed to explain how it calculated the full amount sought in its statement of claim, $4,350.00, or otherwise establish that it is entitled to any additional monies beyond reimbursement for the two tickets that defendant improperly disputed.

Claimant is entitled to an award of interest from the date the charges were disputed, August 23, 2023 (CPLR 5001 ["Interest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract [and] Interest shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed.").

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to amend the caption to correct the claimant's name from Skenerbe Travel Inc. to Skenderbe Travel Inc.; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter a money judgment in favor of claimant Skenderbe Travel Inc. against the defendant Mihal Monka for $4,134.30 plus interest from August 23, 2023.

The Court has mailed defendant's original exhibits back to him at the address in the court's file. Claimant's exhibits consisted of copies and have been discarded by the court. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Date: 8/13/2026

Hon. Eric J. Wursthorn

Civil Court Judge (NYC)

Eric J. Wursthorn, J.