Chang v. Chiariello

• Decision Date: 01 June 1982
• Citation: 450 N.Y.S.2d 993,114 Misc.2d 186
• Parties: Frank H. CHANG, Claimant, v. Gerald CHIARIELLO, Defendant. Eileen PALUMBO, Claimant, v. Theresa PAOLONI, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 993

450 N.Y.S.2d 993

114 Misc.2d 186

Frank H. CHANG, Claimant, v. Gerald CHIARIELLO, Defendant.

Eileen PALUMBO, Claimant, v. Theresa PAOLONI, Defendant.

Civil Court of the City of New York Queens County, Small Claims Part.

June 1, 1982.

Frank H. Chang, pro se.

Gerald Chiariello, pro se.

Eileen Palumbo, pro se.

Theresa Paoloni, pro se.

WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, Judge.

Applications to dismiss these two unrelated proceedings put in focus the question of "adjudication finality" in Small Claims under the New York City Civil Court Act (NYCCCA).

The Claims

These proceedings are illustrative of a relatively small but troublesome number of Small Claims where litigants refuse to accept the fact that their claims have reached finality, or where for various reasons, they continue to resort to Small Claims procedures for improper purposes including deliberate oppression or harassment of their claim opponents.

In action # 1, claimant Chang sought $150.00 for "Fabricated fact and unjustifiable extra charge for legal services rendered." This claim was filed six days after defendant Chiariello secured a Small Claims Arbitration Award of $150.00 for "Legal services rendered" (SCQ2350/82). Upon call of the calendar and application of Chiariello, and following court inquiry, it was determined that an identity of parties in reversed position, as well as an identity of subject matter, existed.

In action # 2, claimant Palumbo sought $1,000.00 for "Personal Loan". This claim being filed a few weeks after defendant Paoloni had secured a judgment against Palumbo, after court trial, for $285.50 for "Refusal to pay back personal loan for air tickets" (SCQ13898/82). The earlier trial was followed by a new trial motion by Palumbo's attorney, which motion was denied. Although trial minutes were ordered, and subsequently delivered, there was a failure to perfect an appeal. Upon application of defendant Paoloni, action # 2 was referred to this court, which following inquiry, determined that an identity of parties in reversed position, as well as an identity of subject matter, existed.

Background

The history behind the establishment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York (Chapter 598 of the Laws of 1934) and its subsequent statutory lineage indicate that through the use of relaxed or adjusted procedure and evidence, Small Claims was devised to meet the challenge of providing quick, simple and inexpensive justice (Levins v. Bucholtz, 208 Misc. 597, 145 N.Y.S.2d 79 (Appellate Term--First Dept.), affd. 2 A.D.2d 351, 155 N.Y.S.2d 770; Buonomo v. Stalker, 40 A.D.2d 733, 336 N.Y.S.2d 687 (Appellate Division--Third Dept.); and see 39 Albany L.Rev. (No. 2) 196 (1974), 52 St. John's L.Rev. 42 (1977)). However, the usefulness of the Small Claims Part to the litigants for whose benefit it was created, relying on the outcome of such lawsuits requires that finality and certainty should attach to Small Claims proceedings.

Conclusions

Upon balance of all possible considerations, this court determines that Small Claims adjudications should not be interfered with except for the most compelling reasons. This desired "End" is clearly prescribed by the statutory mandate which limits an appeal from judgments rendered by a Small Claim judge to the sole ground that "substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (Section 1807 NYCCCA).

It should be noted that litigants have the option of submitting their controversy to court appointed arbitrators who are experienced, qualified, and carefully selected attorneys. In order to do this litigants are first informed that an arbitrator's award is final. They must also be informed that by making this election to go before an arbitrator, they are waiving their right to appeal. (Trager v. Abalene Blouse & Sportswear Corp., 1 Misc.2d 952, 148 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Appellate Term--First Dept. 1956).

Confidence in Small Claims adjudications and the integrity of the administration of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court are essential because of its expanded jurisdiction and use. It is noted that the original Small Claims jurisdictional amount of $50.00 has been increased on various occasions to its present level of $1,500.00 (Chapter 902 of the Laws of 1980). Further, for the past ten years, more than 60,000 New York City Small Claims proceedings, have been filed each year and with more and more public attention being directed towards the availability of "Peoples" or "Small Claims" forums, (For example: See "The People's Court" A.B.C. National Television re-enactments), and more use can be reasonably projected.

As previously indicated, simplified practice is permitted and encouraged in the Small Claims Part, however, the Civil Court Act nevertheless directs that any Small Claims action be based upon "Substantial justice ... according to the rules of substantive law..." (Section 1804 NYCCCA; Jewett v. Jewett, 79 Misc.2d 76, 359 N.Y.S.2d 441). Hence,

"while the court may greatly relax the rules of procedure and evidence, the substantive result in the Small Claims Court should not be different than in any other court." (Hanbridge v. The Catholic High School Association of Archdiocese of New York, Inc., NYLJ, March 11, 1982, p. 6, col. 6, p. 7, col. 3.).

Substantive law defenses such as statutes of limitations, release, disability, discharge in bankruptcy, or statute of frauds, etc., are frequently utilized by or on behalf of litigants in Small Claims, but the restrictive phraseology of Section 1808 NYCCCA, carried over from former Section 186 of the New York City Municipal Court Code, in permitting the use of a res judicata defense "only as to the amount involved in the particular action" has caused not only confusion but has bred conflicting and counter-productive results (See, McKinney's Practice Commentary, David D. Siegel Section 1808, "Judgment obtained to be res...