Anton Shpigel, Appellant, v. Staten Island University Hospital and Northwell Health, Inc., Respondents. (2026)

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $120.24 on condition that, within 30 days of this decision and order, plaintiff files with the Civil Court an affirmation attesting that he has returned to defendants' attorney the $117.61 check he admits to having received; otherwise, the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $10,000, based on alleged overcharges by defendant health providers. At a nonjury trial, it was established that, during the relevant time period, plaintiff received medical treatments from defendants and that, since plaintiff had been approved for participation in a financial assistance program which defendants offered to qualified applicants pursuant to Public Health Law § 2807-k (9-a), he was entitled to be billed in accordance with a statutorily established sliding-fee schedule. After plaintiff filed complaints with the office of the New York State Attorney General, that office instituted two investigations of defendants' bills to plaintiff. Defendants thereafter reduced plaintiff's bills to $0 and found that plaintiff had overpaid them by a total of $120.24. Although correspondence from defendants to plaintiff indicated that defendants had sent plaintiff two separate refund checks, for $110.24 and $10 respectively, plaintiff testified that he had only received a single refund check from defendants, for $117.61. Plaintiff introduced a copy of that check into evidence but testified that he had not deposited it. Defendants did not produce any evidence to demonstrate that they had paid plaintiff any refund apart from the $117.61 check. Following the trial, the Civil Court (Mary A. Kavanagh, J.) dismissed the action, finding, in part, that defendants had "issued refunds on two bills that were overpaid."

In a small claims action, this court's 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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

The evidence supported a finding that plaintiff had received a single refund check for $117.61, and that $2.63 of the $120.24 defendants admittedly owed to plaintiff remained unpaid. Thus, we conclude that the dismissal of the action failed to render substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807). We note that plaintiff produced the $117.61 refund check at trial. Under the circumstances, we award plaintiff the principal sum of $120.24 on condition he returns the $117.61 check to defendants (see CCA 1805 [a]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $120.24 on condition that, within 30 days of this decision and order, plaintiff files with the Civil Court an affirmation attesting that he has returned to defendants' attorney the $117.61 check he admits to having received; otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.

MUNDY, J.P., TOUSSAINT and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 12, 2026