Javeline v. Long Island R. R.

Decision Date14 January 1981
Citation435 N.Y.S.2d 513,106 Misc.2d 814
PartiesRobert M. JAVELINE, Plaintiff, v. The LONG ISLAND RAILROAD, Defendant.
CourtNew York City Court

WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, Judge.

This Small Claims action was tried in a regular part of the Court following waiver by defendant of a demand for trial by jury (N.Y.City Civ.Ct. Act, Section 1806). Plaintiff sued for "failure to provide services" relying on defective or inoperative air conditioning service in defendant's train cars.

The substance of plaintiff's claim, presented through his testimony, exhibits and memoranda was that on nine (9) separate occasions, during the hot summer of 1980, he was a passenger aboard defendant's New York (Penn Station) to Baldwin and Baldwin to New York trains, running on the Babylon Branch line, that the air conditioning systems aboard these window-sealed M-1 trains were not working properly or not functioning at all, that the temperature in the train cars in which plaintiff was riding was unbearable and was in the 90o to excess of 100o range, and that defendant was under a duty to furnish him services in the form of properly functioning air conditioning in its train cars.

In its defense, defendant presented two witnesses, documentary evidence and memoranda, contending that its refund policy did not provide for refunds in the event of lack of air conditioning. Defendant's Assistant Chief Mechanical Officer for Operations, Edward F. Case, specifically testified in detail concerning defendant's air conditioning maintenance program including the cleaning and repair procedures for the entire fleet of defendant's M-1 cars which cars were in use on the Babylon Branch Line trains during the July thru September period of 1980. In summary, defendant contended that it was not obligated to provide the air conditioning services for which plaintiff has sued, or that the air conditioning break downs of 1980 were due to its negligence, or to any willful, wanton or reckless conduct on its part.

Small Claims Standards

Small Claims is meant to be a people's or layman's Court where claims may be tried speedily, informally, and inexpensively. The New York City Civil Court Act, Section 1804, mandates that Small Claims hearings be conducted in a manner as to do substantial justice between the parties, according to rules of substantive law and that the rules of practice, procedure, pleading and evidence be greatly relaxed.

In commenting upon "substantial justice" in the context of a Small Claims forum, the Third Department, in considering a statutory provision of the Uniform City Court Act similar to Section 1804 of the New York City Civil Court Act (NYCCCA) noted that "to effectuate the purposes of the law the trial court must be given wide latitude and discretion in the conduct of the proceedings." (Buonomo v. Stalker, 49 A.D.2d 733, 336 N.Y.S.2d 687). The "Substantial Justice Mandate" in the New York Small Claims Court is examined in depth in 39 Albany L.Rev. (No. 2) 196 (1974) and also in an article on Small Claims practice in the United States in 52 St. John's L.Rev. 42 (1977). The fact that this Small Claim was removed and heard in a regular part of the Court, upon the defendant's jury demand, under Section 1806 of the NYCCCA, which demand was subsequently waived, does not transform the Small Claim into an ordinary case, with respect to the relaxed or adjusted procedure and evidence. (MacCollam v. Arlington, 94 Misc.2d 692, 405 N.Y.S.2d 204). Therefore, these Small Claims principles must be applied in the instant case to the relevant rules of substantive law in determining liability, if any, and resulting damage.

Liability

There appears to be no direct authority concerning liability for defective and inoperative air conditioning. (But see Kessel v. L.I.R.R., S.C. No. 1224/80, Dist.Ct. Nassau County, decision considering inoperative air conditioning pending before Judge Joseph Goldstein and 33 A.L.R.2d 1358 concerning failure to heat trains and buses).

However, the Court of Appeals has over the years held that a railroad company owes its passengers the duty:

"... to care for his comfort and safety. This duty of protecting the personal safety of the passenger and promoting, by every reasonable means, the accomplishment of his journey is continuous, and embraces other attentions and services than the occasional service required in giving the passenger a seat or some temporary accommodation."

(Dwinelle v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 120 N.Y. 117, 24 N.E. 319). And, in Palmer v. President, etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co., 120 N.Y. 170, 24 N.E. 302 the Court of Appeals noted that while a railroad company is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers, it is bound to use a high degree of skill and vigilance to guard against accidents. This vigilance, the court said, is to be exercised by the railroad in seeing that its road and appliances used in operating it are and remain in good condition and free from defects; a latent defect which will relieve it from liability is such, only as no reasonable degree of human skill and foresight could guard against.

In the circumstances of this case, the defendant provided air conditioning systems and service in its fleet of M-1 cars. These cars had sealed windows excluding the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Alice D. v. William M.
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 27 d2 Abril d2 1982
    ...facts that surround their claim and defenses. Buonomo v. Stalker, 40 A.D.2d 733, 336 N.Y.S.2d 687 (3rd Dept. 1972); Javeline v. LIRR, 106 Misc.2d 814, 435 N.Y.S.2d 513 (Civ.Ct., Queens Co., 1981); Faby v. Air France, 113 Misc.2d 840, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1018 (Sm.Cl.Ct., Queens Co.) (n.o.r.). If I ......
  • Royster v. Consolidated Edison
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 16 d3 Junho d3 1982
    ...would be in accord with the mandate of the Small Claims Court to operate on the basis of simplified practice (Javeline v. Long Island Railroad, 106 Misc.2d 814, 435 N.Y.S.2d 513 (Civil Ct., Queens Co., 1981)) and to do "substantial justice." (NYCCCA Sec. CPLR Sec. 5015 governs applications ......
  • Fendelman v. Conrail
    • United States
    • New York Villiage Court
    • 16 d3 Março d3 1983
    ...316, 418 N.Y.S.2d 310, 391 N.E.2d 1288; Dominianni v. Consolidated Railroad Corporation, supra, and Javeline v. Long Island R.R., 1981, Queens County, 106 Misc.2d 814, 435 N.Y.S.2d 513 (See also Kessel v. Long Is. RR Co., supra, and Becker v. Conrail, supra). The Court notes that in Dominia......
  • Clegg v. Bon Temps, Ltd.
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 9 d5 Julho d5 1982
    ...seeks to do substantial justice, (NYCCCA Sec. 1804), and promote a simplified form of procedure and practice. See, Javeline v. LIRR, 106 Misc.2d 814, 435 N.Y.S.2d 513 (Civ.Ct. Queens Co. 1981); Faby v. Air France, 113 Misc.2d 840, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1018 (Sm.Cl.Ct., Queens Co.) (n.o.r.). Although......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 6.01 THE IMPACT OF CLASS ACTIONS
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...(commuter action alleging breach of contract; disclaimers not enforced; judgment for plaintiff); Javeline v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 106 Misc. 2d 814, 435 N.Y.S.2d 513 (1981) (commuter action alleging negligence in maintaining air conditioning systems; disclaimers not enforced; judgment ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT