Hampton v. Annal Management Co., Ltd.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1994 |
| Citation | 164 Misc.2d 287,624 N.Y.S.2d 764 |
| Parties | Beatrice HAMPTON, Claimant, v. ANNAL MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. and Sharon Wells, Defendants. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Beatrice Hampton, pro se.
Sharon Wells, pro se.
Steven A. Weissman, Bronx, for defendant Annal Management Co., Ltd.
The issue in this small claim is whether this court can hold a party in contempt consistent with procedural and substantive due process for failure to respond to a judicial subpoena, actually received, containing caption and service deficiencies, where the previous underlying claim against it was dismissed. This court holds that the defects in the form and service of the subpoena are not sufficiently fatal to void this court's jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
Plaintiff, Beatrice Hampton ("Hampton") moved by order to show cause for an order to hold "Noel Coreano, c/o Annal Management" in contempt of court for defendant's, Annal Management Co. Ltd. ("Annal"), failure and refusal to obey a judicial subpoena endorsed by the clerk of the court. Annal did not appear on the return date of the motion. Hampton alleges she was unable to prove her case in the amount of $2,000.00 due to Annal's failure to appear at trial.
Pursuant to CPLR §§ 2308(a) and 4404(b), and Judiciary Law §§ 753(a)(5) and 773, this court directed that a hearing be held on an adjourned date to Hampton's order to show cause to determine the amount of damages, if any, suffered by Hampton and to hold Annal in contempt for failure to respond to the judicial subpoena. This court notified Annal to attend the hearing.
At the hearing of this matter, on June 1, 1994, Annal's attorney made a motion to quash the subpoena and dismiss the contempt proceeding alleging that: Annal was not a party named in the subpoena because it named Noel Coreano, an alleged employee of Annal, in his individual capacity, as did the order to show cause to hold Annal in contempt; Annal's employment records indicated that an individual named "Noah" Coreano was a former employee who no longer worked for Annal; Annal was dismissed as a defendant in this claim on May 11, 1993 by the Honorable Francis Allesandro; the service of the subpoena was defective for it was served by certified mail return receipt requested instead of personally as directed by the Honorable Judith Gische, and $15.00 was not tendered as required by statute.
Hampton has appeared pro se throughout this matter. She commenced her claim against her landlord, Annal, because water leaks damaged various items in her apartment. At trial, Annal appeared through its agent Noel/Noah Coreano ("Coreano"). The matter was conferenced and Hampton was directed by the Honorable Stanley Green to implead her upstairs neighbor, as it appeared the water was seeping from parts of her ceiling, and may have been caused by an unauthorized use of a washing machine. Hampton then brought a claim against her neighbor, Sharon Wells ("Wells"), which was consolidated with the main claim. After three adjournments, including one where the Honorable Donna M. Mills instructed Hampton to bring an inventory of her property damage and valuation, the case was marked for trial on May 11, 1993. On the trial date, Wells did not appear. Judgment was granted in favor of Annal who essentially maintained that the water leaks were caused by Wells's unauthorized use of a washing machine. Judgment was also granted in favor of Hampton against Wells for $2,000.00 after inquest. Shortly thereafter, Wells moved successfully to vacate her default. A new trial date was set and Hampton served a judicial subpoena by certified mail return receipt requested upon "Mr. Noel Coreano c/o Annal Management", without tendering the $15.00 fee. Hampton wanted Annal to reiterate its claim that it was not responsible for the water leaks, and present its proof or knowledge that the source was from Wells's washing machine. On the October 25, 1993 trial date, Wells appeared and testified that the leaks were not caused by her washing machine. As a result, judgment was granted in favor of Wells. However, since Annal did not appear pursuant to the subpoena, Hampton was unable to establish that Wells or Annal was responsible for the water leaks.
CPLR 2308(a) authorizes this court to hold a subpoenaed person or entity in contempt and find liability for failure to comply with a subpoena:
Failure to comply with a subpoena issued by a judge, clerk or officer of the court shall be punishable as a contempt of court.... A subpoenaed person shall also be liable to the person on whose behalf the subpoena was issued for a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars and damages sustained by reason of the failure to comply. (Emphasis added)
The standard of review in small claims is that of substantial justice. New York City Civil Court Act § 1804 provides in relevant part:
Informal and simplified procedure on small claims. The court shall conduct hearings upon small claims in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law and shall not be bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence, ...
Upon application of the standard of substantial justice, this court has jurisdiction over Annal pursuant to the service of the subpoena. To the extent that the service was contrary to statutory provisions, such deficiencies are not sufficiently fatal to jurisdiction in this case, since by applying the standard of substantial justice this court is guided, rather than bound, by the rules of practice and procedure and there is no prejudice to Annal. Although the subpoena denominated the person to be served as "Mr. Noel Coreano c/o Annal Management", Annal was a defendant from the inception of this matter. The caption named Annal as a party, not Coreano. Coreano was never brought in as a party defendant. Coreano was the only representative to appear on behalf of his employer Annal. Annal has been represented by attorney from the commencement of this claim. Annal actually received the subpoena and order to show cause, as noted in the return receipt portion of the certified mailing. 1 Coreano received the subpoena and order to show cause in his representative capacity on behalf of Annal, as shown by Annal's address on the certified mailing return receipt. Coreano was employed by Annal at the time and had a duty to inform its principal. Furthermore, the dismissal of Hampton's claim against Annal does not void this court's jurisdiction of a subpoenaed person.
The rules of practice and procedure that would otherwise be applicable would require, pursuant to CPLR 2303, that a subpoena be served in the same manner as a summons. The methods of service of a summons are contained in article 3 of the CPLR. Annal, a corporation, would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katims v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
...the proper party for corporate service as long as the due process requirements of notice of suit is effected. (See Hampton v Annal Mgt. Co., 164 Misc 2d 287 [Civ Ct, Bronx County Huntington Jeep implicitly acknowledged its informally designated status as an agent for the service of process ......
-
Broja Realty, LLC v. Amparo
...substantial justice requires that the claim be barred (see McKinney's NY City Civ. Ct. Act §1804; Hampton v Annal Management Co., LTD, 164 Misc 2d 287, 624 NYS 2d 764; Mongelli, et al. v Cabral, et al. 166 Misc 2d 240, 632 NYS 2d 927). And although some of the late charges which Claimant se......
-
Cordaro v. Town of Greece Assessor
...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,......
-
Cordaro v. Town of Greece Assessor
...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, i......
-
Table of Cases
...Dept 1991), §§29:07, 32:60 Hamm v. Richards , 12 AD2d 953, 210 NYS2d 871 (2d Dept 1961), §8:50 Hampton v. Annal Management Co., Ltd. , 164 Misc2d 287, 624 NYS2d 764 (Civ Ct Bronx County 1994), §17:25 Hancock v. 330 Hull Realty Corp. , 225 AD2d 365, 638 NYS2d 654 (1st Dept 1996), §26:81 Hand......
-
Subpoenas: Compelling Witness Attendance and Productions at Trial
...“any person whose presence is compelled by a subpoena” is entitled to a witness fee. However, in Hampton v. Annal Management Co., Ltd. , 164 Misc2d 287, 624 NYS2d 764 (Civ Ct Bronx County 1994), the Civil Court judge in a small claims matter held that the court had jurisdiction in a contemp......
-
Subpoenas: Compelling Witness Attendance and Productions at Trial
...“any person whose presence is compelled by a subpoena” is entitled to a witness fee. However, in Hampton v. Annal Management Co., Ltd. , 164 Misc2d 287, 624 NYS2d 764 (Civ Ct Bronx County 1994), the Civil Court judge in a small claims matter held that the court had jurisdiction in a contemp......
-
Subpoenas: Compelling Witness Attendance and Productions at Trial
...“any person whose presence is compelled by a subpoena” is entitled to a witness fee. However, in Hampton v. Annal Management Co., Ltd. , 164 Misc2d 287, 624 NYS2d 764 (Civ Ct Bronx County 1994), the Civil Court judge in a small claims matter held that the court had jurisdiction in a contemp......