MCWILLIAMS v. DESILVA (2024)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, which was commenced on February 10, 2023, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $3,000. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that, in 2019 and 2020, she was the owner of a condominium apartment and defendant was the owner of the condominium apartment directly above plaintiff's. In 2019, the hallway bathroom in plaintiff's condominium was damaged by a leak from above, necessitating repairs. Plaintiff was fully compensated for those repairs by her own and defendant's insurance companies. In October 2020, while remodeling the bathrooms in plaintiff's condominium, a worker employed by plaintiff discovered a cracked and leaking pipe which, he informed plaintiff, had damaged the ceiling of the master bedroom's bathroom. She paid a total of $1,698.81 to replace the pipe and the ceiling, and, insofar as relevant to this appeal, sought in this action to recover that sum from defendant. Following the trial, the Justice Court (Stephen G. Tomann, J.) dismissed plaintiff's cause of action upon a finding that her claim was partially barred by the statute of limitations, and, in effect, that plaintiff had failed to establish a basis for a judgment against defendant with respect to the remainder of her damages.

In a small claims action, this court's review is limited to a determination of whether “substantial justice has ․ been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

An action to recover damages for an injury to property must be commenced within three years of accrual (see CPLR 214 [4]). Such a cause of action accrues when the damage is apparent (see Payano v Patel, 130 AD3d 896, 896-897 [2015]; see also Russell v Dunbar, 40 AD3d 952, 953 [2007]). To the extent that plaintiff sought to recover for property damage that only became apparent in October 2020, when her worker discovered the defective pipe and the damage it had caused, her February 2023 cause of action was not time-barred. However, since plaintiff failed to establish defendant's legal responsibility for the cracked pipe, and, in any event, failed to produce an itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates for services or repairs (UJCA 1804), we conclude that the dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807).

We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

GARGUILO, P.J., WALSH and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.