DOUGAL v. KINDLON (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Jennifer Sober, J.), entered July 29, 2025, which dismissed plaintiffs' appeal from an oral decision of the City Court of the City of Albany in favor of defendants.

In July 2023, plaintiffs commenced a small claims action in Albany City Court seeking the return of $5,000 in legal fees paid to defendants, a lawyer and his law firm.  The matter proceeded to arbitration and, following a hearing, the arbitrator awarded plaintiffs $5,000 in June 2024.  Defendants filed objections to the arbitration award and the matter was scheduled for a trial de novo.  At the conclusion of the trial in December 2024, City Court (Farrell, J.) rendered an oral decision from the bench, dismissing the small claims action.  Plaintiffs appealed from the transcript of the oral decision, and County Court dismissed the appeal for lack of an appealable paper.  Plaintiffs appeal.

An appeal as of right to this Court may be taken from an order of a county court that determines an appeal from a judgment of a city court (see CPLR 5703[b];  UCCA 1702[a] ).  However, no appeal lies from an oral decision which was not reduced to a judgment (see Fang v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 99 AD3d 1236, 1236 [4th Dept 2012];  Matter of Marc D. v Fulton County Dept. of Social Servs., 79 AD3d 1534, 1534 [3d Dept 2010];  see also CPLR 5512[a] ).  Here, despite that when determining a small claims matter a city court “shall direct judgment in accordance with its findings” (UCCA 1805[a] ), there is nothing in the record establishing that a judgment was ever issued by City Court or filed in the City Court Clerk's office.  Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, City Court's subsequent decision and order denying plaintiffs' motion to compel the issuance of a judgment was not a final judgment.¹  While this subsequent order is not before us, we note that “it is incumbent upon a court to ensure that a small claims action is terminated by the entry of a judgment or final order” for the purposes of review and enforcement, as well as finality (Fang v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 99 AD3d at 1236–1237).  To that end, where the judgment is not timely prepared by the successful party and the unsuccessful party is pro se, “the judgment shall be prepared by the clerk upon request of such party” (UCCA 1401;  see Gatti v. Rago, 52 Misc.3d 41, 42–43 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016] ).  Accordingly, based on the record before us and the lack of a judgment or final order, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal (see Fang v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 99 AD3d at 1237;  Matter of Marc D. v Fulton County Dept. of Social Servs., 79 AD3d at 1535).  We have examined the parties' remaining contentions, and have found them to be without merit, academic or not properly before us.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We take judicial notice of City Court's decision and order dated September 10, 2025.

Fisher, J.P.

Powers, Corcoran and Ryba, JJ., concur.