PALMER v. GOGO FURNITURE (2025)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

Tyisha C. PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOGO FURNITURE, Defendant-Respondent.

570121 /25

Decided: April 21, 2025

PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.

Judgment (Erik L. Gray, J.), entered March 7, 2023, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for a new inquest.

The trial court properly resolved the liability aspect of plaintiff's defective furniture claim in her favor, but dismissed the action for failure to prove actual damages sustained (see CCA 1804; Paulson v Kotsilimbas, 124 AD2d 513, 514 [1986]). Although the trial court was correct in finding that it could not ascertain the value of the defective bed because the purchase receipt submitted by the pro se plaintiff only listed the total price of the bedroom set and did not separately itemize the cost of the bed, the ends of “substantial justice” (CAA 1807) would be better served by affording the plaintiff a final opportunity to demonstrate the value of the bed (see Gamboa v 245 PAS Prop. LLC, 42 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52214[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; Correa v Midtown Moving, 4 Misc 3d 135[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50798[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2004]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network