Ajay Bhuvaneshwar, Respondent, v. Haven Marine Group, Inc. and Alan Bregman, Appellants. (2024)

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

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

These appeals arise from two small claims actions. In the first action (appeal No. 2023-1098 N C), plaintiff sought to recover the principal sum of $5,000, constituting a partial refund of money he had paid to defendants, a marine facility and one of its owners, for labor and parts in connection with allegedly unauthorized repairs to his boat. According to an invoice dated April 8, 2022, which plaintiff paid on June 24, 2022, the repairs were performed on October 6, 2021 and January 22, 2022. In the second action (appeal No. 2023-1099 N C), plaintiff sought to recover the principal sum of $2,534.85, constituting a refund of money he had paid to defendants in connection with additional allegedly unauthorized repairs invoiced and paid for on June 17, 2023. Defendants moved to dismiss each small claims action, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (5), arguing that both actions were based upon a single cause of action, and were split by plaintiff to circumvent the $5,000 monetary jurisdictional limit of the Small Claims Part of the court. The District Court (Joseph Nocella, Jr., J.) denied each motion by separate order, each dated October 3, 2023.

"Although a party may generally join two or more causes of action in one complaint, a party may not split a single cause of action and maintain successive actions for different parts of it" (1 NY Jur 2d, Actions § 48). Here, although both actions seek the return of funds paid for parts furnished and labor performed in connection with repairs to the same boat, plaintiff did not split a single cause of action into two small claims actions (cf. Board of Mgrs. of Green Mtn. Condominium v Rodrigues, 24 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51373[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; Swiss Hamlet Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v Souza, 13 Misc 3d 87 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]). Defendants failed to establish that their acts, memorialized in two detailed invoices dated over one year apart and paid nearly one year apart, were "substantially of the same sort and similarly motivated" (Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 24 [1982]) in a way other than the fact that all boat repairs are generally undertaken to return the vessel to operational condition.

Accordingly, the orders are affirmed.

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

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: December 12, 2024