BOTA v. MULLIKIN (2020)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

Victor Cesar BOTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David MULLIKIN, Mullikin's Corvette Specialist, Defendants-Respondents.

570310 /19

Decided: February 21, 2020

PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.

Judgment (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), entered February 8, 2019, affirmed, without costs.

The amount of the damage award issued in plaintiff's favor was supported by the trial evidence and was neither inadequate nor unreasonable. Plaintiff's damages were properly limited, since he failed to establish the market value of his 1980 model year vehicle immediately before it was given to defendants-mechanics (see Schwartz v. Crozier, 169 AD2d 1003 [1991]). The limited evidence presented by plaintiff regarding similar makes and models was properly rejected, given plaintiff's substantial modifications of the vehicle, including the removal of the roof, which significantly reduced its value.

We note that defendant offered to return the vehicle, but plaintiff refused the offer.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

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Out of date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