Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Timothy YOUNG and Debora Young, Respondents, v. David MAY, doing business as New York Remodeling Corp., Appellant.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiffs to the principal sum of $1; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action sounding in breach of contract (see Corrado v East End Pool & Hot Tub, Inc., 69 AD3d 900, 900 [2010]) to recover the principal sum of $5,000 from defendant, a contractor, for the cost of remediation and the value of plaintiffs’ damaged and/or destroyed possessions as the result of a mold condition that occurred in their attic after defendant replaced the siding on their house. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the principal sum of $5,000.
In a small claims action, our 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” (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Since plaintiffs provided only one estimate for the cost of remediation of the mold condition (see UCCA 1804) and failed to provide any testimony or documentation regarding the condition, age and cost of any of their allegedly damaged and/or destroyed possessions (see Charles v Boland, 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51524[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]), we find that the City Court's determination that plaintiffs were entitled to receive the principal sum of $5,000 cannot be sustained. Nevertheless, nominal damages are always available in breach of contract actions and plaintiffs are entitled to recover such damages to vindicate their rights arising from the breach of contract (see Bevilaqua-Fiorino v Top Class Limousine, 7 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50529[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]). Consequently, the judgment should be reduced to the sum of $1.
Accordingly, the judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of plaintiffs to the principal sum of $1.
EMERSON, J.P., GARGUILO and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 2021-629 W C
Decided: August 11, 2022
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)