Cordaro v. Town of Greece Assessor
| Decision Date | 19 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 21050025 |
| Citation | 2021 NY Slip Op 51311 (U) |
| Parties | Michael Cordaro, Plaintiff, v. Town of Greece Assessor, Richard Baart, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Justice Court |
Unpublished Opinion
MICHAEL CORDARO, pro se.
TOWN OF GREECE ASSESSOR, RICHARD BAART, By: Jeremy M. Sher, Esq.
The plaintiff, MICHAEL CORDARO ("plaintiff") commenced this small claim against TOWN OF GREECE ASSESSOR, RICHARD BAART ("defendant") in the Justice Court for the Town of Greece, County of Monroe, State of New York, in the amount of $3,000.00, plus the $15.00 court filing fee, for a total of $3,015.00 for, according to the Small Claims Complaint Form filed on March 11, 2021, On April 16, 2021, the Hon. Michael L. Dollinger, Monroe County Court Judge, issued an Order Granting Motion for Removal From Greece Town Court and Hereby Transferred to Parma Town Court Pursuant to C.P.L.R §325(g) ("Order of Transfer") based on the recusal and disqualification of the Greece Town Justices where this Small Claim was originally filed based upon the purported jurisdiction of the parties. Following the receipt of Judge Dollinger's Order of Transfer on or around May 6, 2021, the Court Clerk in the Town of Parma properly served a Notice of Small Claim scheduling this matter for June 17, 2021. See, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §214.10(e). The parties appeared on June 17, 2021 to participate in a fair and impartial hearing of this small claim. Prior to the swearing in of any witnesses however, including the plaintiff appearing pro se, the defendant, by and through his counsel, Jeremy M. Sher, Esq., submitted Defendant's Memorandum of Law dated June 17, 2021 for the Court's consideration.
The Court heard argument from defendant's counsel in support of his legal arguments that (1) res judicata bars plaintiff's attempt to relitigate the Small Claims Assessment Review ("SCAR") Hearing or Article 78 Proceeding, and (2) plaintiff's failure to serve a Notice of Claim bars this action. The Court also heard from the plaintiff in opposition to defendant's request for a dismissal on both of the legal arguments stated herein. Following the initial appearance of June 17, 2021, the Court conferenced the matter on the record with plaintiff and defendant's counsel on June 24, 2021 to advise the parties that the Court had reviewed the argument thus far and wanted to provide both parties with an opportunity to submit additional material in support of, and in opposition to, defendant's arguments raised for the first time in the Memorandum of Law received on June 17, 2021. The parties thereafter submitted their respective legal briefs on July 8, 2021, including Plaintiff's Supplemental Correspondence and corresponding Exhibits A, B, and C, and Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum of Law and corresponding Exhibits A and B. The Court thereafter scheduled the matter for Thursday, at 6:00 p.m. and reserved the opportunity to submit a written decision upon due deliberation of the matter prior to the return date and time.
It should be noted that neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant, were sworn in as witnesses on June 17, 2021, or any other date and time by this Court. The Court received legal argument only and advised the parties that a Small Claim Hearing may be convened on a future date if the Court denied the defendant's request for a dismissal and was to proceed on the factual merits of the plaintiff's small claim.
The purpose of Small Claims Court is to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1804 (McKinney's 2021); see, Hampton v. Annal Management Co., Ltd., 164 Misc.2d 287 (City Civ. Ct. 1994), appeal dismissed, 168 Misc.2d 138 (App. Term 1996). Small Claims Court is designed to provide litigants with a simple, informal and inexpensive procedure for the prompt determination of claims. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1802 (McKinney's 2021). Although procedural rules may be relaxed, cases must be decided according to the rules and principles of substantive law. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1804. This Court is bound by this standard; a standard which has been supported throughout many terms of this Court and others similarly situated throughout New York State. Accordingly, the goal of this Court throughout this entire proceeding is to ensure that substantial justice is done between the parties relying on the sound principles of statutory and case law; in doing so, this Court is required to deliberate upon the facts and apply the law to those facts. Under New York law, even in the relatively informal atmosphere of Small Claims Court, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing its case by a preponderance of the evidence. See, Naclerio v. Adjunct Faculty, 1 Misc.3d 135 (Appellate Term 2003); see also, Rodriguez v Mitch's Transmission, 32 Misc.3d 126 (Appellate Term 2011). In other words, plaintiff must prove its case by the greater weight of the evidence. If the testimony is evenly balanced, judgment must be rendered against the plaintiff.
However, before this Court can hear the factual merits of any case to determine if plaintiff has met its burden, including a small claims matter, the Court must resolve any legal issues or jurisdictional prerequisites that may be raised by either party based upon sound principles of statutory and case law. In this case, defendant argues that (1) res judicata bars plaintiff's attempt to relitigate the SCAR Hearing or Article 78 Proceeding, and (2) plaintiff's failure to serve a Notice of Claim bars this action. Before this Court may swear in the witnesses and hear their factual claims and defenses, the Court must resolve these two legal issues. In doing so, this Court concludes that plaintiff's failure to serve a Notice of Claim as articulated in Point 2 bars this action and does not require this Court to further deliberate over the additional legal argument raised by defendant at Point 1 which would require additional fact finding and sworn testimony at a Small Claims Hearing concerning plaintiff's 2020/2021 property tax assessment that he alleges in his Small Claims Complaint and the arguments articulated in Plaintiff's Supplemental Correspondence of July 8, 2021 at pages 4 through 9. See generally, TELX NY LLC v. Tax Comm'n, 190 A.D.3d 595, 596 (1st Dept. 2021) (citing Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.3d 343, 347 [1999]); see also, Williams v. City of Yonkers, 160 A.D.3d 1017, 1018 (2d Dept. 2018) (quoting Parker, 93 N.Y.2d at 347-48), Kraebel v. NY City Dept. of Fin., 217 A.D.2d 416, 417 (1st Dept. 1995).
As deduced from the arguments by both parties and the legal history that led to this small claim, there is no disagreement between the parties that defendant was a public officer in the Town of Greece. In plaintiff's Small Claim Complaint Form, he alleges claims in his own words against defendant of "Negligence and malpractice as a public official in public office." As such, defendant as a public official is entitled to indemnification by the Town of Greece. As a result, plaintiff must file a Notice of Claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial