Borman v. Purvis
| Decision Date | 07 November 2002 |
| Citation | 750 N.Y.S.2d 169,299 A.D.2d 615 |
| Parties | JAMES T. BORMAN, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>GERALD H. PURVIS, Respondent. (Action No. 1.)<BR>JAMES T. BORMAN, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>DANIEL J. CORNELL, Respondent. (Action No. 2.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In March 1999, plaintiff contracted with defendant Daniel J. Cornell whereby Cornell agreed to pay plaintiff $300 in exchange for the right to cut down and remove trees growing on plaintiff's property in the Town of Veteran, Chemung County. The parties further agreed that Cornell would have "the right to make necessary roads, skidways and landings" on plaintiff's property to remove the timber. The improvements were to be left in "an acceptable manner at the completion of the logging." Thereafter, in April 2000, plaintiff filed a small claims action against Cornell (action No. 2) in Veteran Town Court, alleging that Cornell had removed three ash trees that were not provided for in the contract and that he had left the property in an unacceptable condition. Plaintiff further sought indemnification in the amount of $3,000 for the alleged damage to his property and $112.10, representing the value of the ash trees. Veteran Town Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had submitted only one estimate showing the repair costs and the value of the ash trees, when at least two estimates are required pursuant to UJCA 1804. Plaintiff appealed to Chemung County Court which modified Veteran Town Court's decision by reinstating the complaint and awarding $214 in damages and $15 in court costs to plaintiff.
In May 2000, plaintiff commenced a small claims action against defendant Gerald H. Purvis in Dix Town Court (action No. 1), alleging that Purvis had assisted Cornell in his logging activities on plaintiff's property. Dix Town Court dismissed the complaint noting that Purvis was not a party to the contract between plaintiff and Cornell and thus could not be held liable for its breach. This decision was affirmed on appeal to Schuyler County Court. Plaintiff now brings these appeals, consolidated by permission of this Court, from the order of Schuyler County Court and from the judgment rendered by Chemung County Court.
In our view, Schuyler County Court correctly affirmed the decision of Dix Town Court dismissing the complaint against Purvis in action No. 1. The standard of review in small claims cases is limited to whether "substantial justice has * * * been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UJCA 1807; see Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707; see also Brackman v Southern Tier Abstract Corp., 289 AD2d 630, 631, lv dismissed 97 NY2d 742). Judgments rendered in these matters are not to be disturbed upon judicial review "unless they are clearly erroneous" (Moses v Randolph, supra at 707). Guided by these principles, we find that Schuyler County Court correctly ruled that Dix Town Court's order dismissing the complaint in action No. 1 rendered substantial justice to the parties.
The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint in action No. 1 is that Purvis was guilty of breach of contract based on his damage to plaintiff's property and his unauthorized harvesting of certain trees. The record indicates, however, that Purvis was not a party to the contract between plaintiff and Cornell nor did plaintiff present any proof showing that Purvis was responsible for the damage to his property. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the order of Schuyler County Court, affirming the judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 1.
Turning to the disposition of action No. 2, we find without merit plaintiff's contention that he was deprived of substantial justice because he was forced by Veteran Town Court to proceed without his attorney. The record before us reveals that the matter was adjourned from June 14, 2000 to June 28, 2000, at which time plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MLB Constr. Servs., LLC v. Lake Ave. Plaza, LLC, 524393
...A.D.3d 1115, 1118, 977 N.Y.S.2d 123 [2013], lv dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1172, 985 N.Y.S.2d 472, 8 N.E.3d 850 [2014] ; Borman v. Purvis, 299 A.D.2d 615, 616, 750 N.Y.S.2d 169 [2002] ). To the extent that MLB claims third-party beneficiary status, such claim is without merit (see IMS Engrs.-Archit......
- Marcello v. Flecher
-
Kelsey v. McNally
...erroneous, it must be overturned ( see Moses v. Randolph, 236 A.D.2d 706, 707, 653 N.Y.S.2d 214 [1997]; compare Borman v. Purvis, 299 A.D.2d 615, 616, 750 N.Y.S.2d 169 [2002] ). Inasmuch as plaintiff acknowledged that she was entitled to recover no more than $443 and Justice Court's judgmen......
-
DeLeon v. Kalil
...as against all defendants other than Kalil, inasmuch as those defendants were not parties to the contract (see Borman v. Purvis, 299 A.D.2d 615, 616, 750 N.Y.S.2d 169 [2002] ). Turning to the claims insofar as asserted against Kalil, “appellate review of small claims judgments is limited to......