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.
David HAMILL and Donna Hamill, Appellants, v. GREAT EXPRESSIONS DENTAL, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Symeco, Respondents.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,000 based on, among other things, defendants' having furnished a defective bridge that had been cemented into plaintiff Donna Hamill's mouth. Following a nonjury trial, at which Donna Hamill did not testify, the Justice Court dismissed the action.
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” (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v. Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000] ). Although small claims courts are not bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence (see UJCA 1804), a small claims judgment may not be based on hearsay alone (see Zelnik v. Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., 242 AD2d 227 [1997]; Levins v. Bucholtz, 2 AD2d 351 [1956] ). At the trial, David Hamill was the sole witness on behalf of plaintiffs. As plaintiffs failed to submit any expert testimony, which is required in a dental malpractice action (see Blum v. Yuabov, 12 Misc 3d 139[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51333[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006] ), to support their contention that defendants provided a bridge that did not fit Donna Hamill properly, plaintiffs failed to establish defendants' liability.
In view of the foregoing, the judgment dismissing the action rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UJCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
TOLBERT, J.P., BRANDS and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2018-997 RO C
Decided: December 13, 2018
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)