Patrick F. Devito, Respondent, v. Hempstead Ford, Appellant. (2024)

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the action is dismissed.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $4,000, alleging that Ford Motor Company's "failure to act on a transmission recall" caused the transmission in plaintiff's vehicle to seize. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,000.

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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Although a small claims court is not bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading, or evidence (see UDCA 1804), "a small claims judgment cannot be based on hearsay alone" (Mark v Dutchess Jeep Chrysler Dodge, 79 Misc 3d 128[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50684[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023]; see Zelnik v Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., 242 AD2d 227, 228 [1997]; Levins v Bucholtz, 2 AD2d 351, 352 [1956]).

Here, plaintiff failed to establish that defendant should be held vicariously liable for Ford Motor Company's handling of the recall. Absent proof that defendant "has the power and right to control the actions of" Ford Motor Company, there is no basis for holding defendant responsible for Ford Motor Company's alleged misconduct (Lee S. Kreindler et al., New York Law of Torts § 9:2 [West's NY Prac Series, August 2023 update]; see Caceres v Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 216 AD3d 732, 733 [2023]; Khanimov v McDonald's Corp., 121 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2014]; Entler v Koch, 85 AD3d 1098, 1101-1102 [2011]; Smith-Hoy v AMC Prop. Evaluations, Inc., 52 AD3d 809, 811 [2008]). In any event, the evidence proffered by plaintiff in support of his contention that Ford Motor Company's handling of the recall caused the issue with his vehicle's transmission consisted solely of hearsay and/or speculation (see Mark v Dutchess Jeep Chrysler Dodge, 2023 NY Slip Op 50684[U]; Weinstein v Shy Fox Farm, 48 Misc 3d 133[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51071[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, the judgment failed to render substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the action is dismissed.

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

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: July 25, 2024