WANG v. SLADKUS (2023)

Order (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered October 18, 2022, affirmed, without costs.

Informal and simplified procedures govern small claims actions (see CCA 1804) and pretrial motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211[a][7]) should rarely, if ever, be entertained in Small Claims Court (see Friedman v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 167 Misc 2d 57 [App Term, 1st Dept 1995]; see also Rackowski v Araya, 152 AD3d 834, 836 [2017]). “The informality and convenience of small claims practice is necessarily frustrated by requiring pro se litigants to respond to formal motion practice under the CPLR prior to the hearing of their case” (Friedman v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 167 Misc 2d at 58) and no exception to the rule is warranted in this case. “[S]ubstantial justice” (CCA 1804) will best be rendered by a prompt trial, where defendant may assert his substantive arguments for dismissal (see Borisovski v Lamarre, 66 Misc 3d 138[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50080[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]).

We note, further, that a court does not determine the merits of a cause of action on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion (see Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272, 275 [1977]). Thus, any statements by Civil Court concerning the merits of any potential claim are dicta.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.