MCWILLIAMS v. ADOPLEY (2023)

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for the purposes of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended joint judgment is modified by reducing the award in favor of defendant to the net principal sum of $114.11; as so modified, the amended joint judgment is affirmed, without costs.

These appeals arise from two small claims actions. The first action (Poughkeepsie City Ct index No. SC-168-21) was denominated a breach of contract action in which plaintiff sought to recover the principal sum of $5,000, claiming that she and defendant entered into a contract whereby plaintiff would pay defendant $16,400 in labor costs for certain home improvements, but that defendant failed to complete the work. In the second small claims action (Poughkeepsie City Ct index No. SC-275-21), sounding in negligence, plaintiff sought to recover the principal sum of $3,728.11 as reimbursement of costs she incurred to replace the kitchen cabinets damaged by defendant during installation.¹ Defendant served separate answers denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. In the first action (index No. SC-168-21), defendant also interposed two counterclaims seeking the principal sum of $5,000 for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. After a joint nonjury trial on the two claims and defendant's counterclaim, the City Court awarded defendant the principal sum of $5,000 on his counterclaim in the first action and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,712.55, representing the cost of replacement cabinets, plus the principal sum of $375, representing what the court described as the cost to install the replacement cabinets, for a total principal sum of $4,087.55. A joint judgment was entered on February 10, 2022, as amended on February 23, 2022, which referred to the two separate awards and awarded defendant the net principal sum of $912.45.

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, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

The judgment did not provide substantial justice to the parties, as the court failed to correctly calculate damages. As we find support for the court's conclusion that plaintiff breached the contract and that defendant had performed 90 percent of the contracted work prior to the breach, defendant was thereby entitled to recover the contract price ($16,400) less payments received ($10,933.34) and less the cost of completing the final 10 percent of the labor costs contracted for ($1,640) (see New Era Homes Corp. v Forster, 299 NY 303, 307 [1949]). Thus, the award upon defendant's counterclaim in the first action should have been in the principal sum of $3,826.66 and not $5,000.

We further find that the court misstated what the $375 it awarded to plaintiff represented. The record establishes that the $375 plaintiff paid to a third-party contractor was not for the reinstallation of her kitchen cabinets, i.e., for work that defendant had improperly performed, but rather, to partially finish work that defendant had not yet completed under the contract. Consequently, the $375 that plaintiff paid to the other contractor cannot be used to further offset the amount due defendant on his counterclaim, as that offset has already been taken into consideration by this court when deducting the 10% portion of the contract that defendant had not completed, i.e. $1,640, from the amount due defendant.

In view of the foregoing, defendant is only entitled to the sum of $3,826.66 on his counterclaim which should be offset by the sum of $3,712.55 to which plaintiff is entitled. Accordingly, substantial justice (see UCCA 1804, 1807) requires that the amended joint judgment be modified by reducing the award in favor of defendant to the net principal sum of $114.11.

FOOTNOTES

1.   No issue is raised on this appeal as to whether plaintiff's two actions constituted a splitting of a single cause of action.

GARGUILO, P.J., DRISCOLL and WALSH, JJ., concur.