Kapoor v. Kuwait Airways Customs Serv. Dept

• Decision Date: 12 October 2018
• Docket Number: 2017-816 Q C
• Citation: 110 N.Y.S.3d 863 (Table),61 Misc.3d 132 (A)
• Parties: Shamoli KAPOOR, Appellant, v. KUWAIT AIRWAYS CUSTOMS SERVICE DEPT., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

61 Misc.3d 132 (A)
110 N.Y.S.3d 863 (Table)

Shamoli KAPOOR, Appellant,
v.
KUWAIT AIRWAYS CUSTOMS SERVICE DEPT., Respondent.

2017-816 Q C

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.

Decided October 12, 2018

Shamoli Kapoor, appellant pro se.

Condon & Forsyth, LLP (John Maggio of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $4,999. After defendant defaulted, an inquest was held, at which plaintiff testified that she had purchased a $1,726 round-trip ticket for travel on defendant's airline from New York to India, but that, upon her arrival at the airport, she had not been allowed to board defendant's airplane because of the expiration date on her passport. She further alleged that she had previously been misadvised by defendant's employee that she would be permitted to travel even though her passport was due to expire within six months of her anticipated arrival in India. Plaintiff also claimed that, as a result of the actions of defendant's employees, she had lost wages. Following the inquest, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has ... been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" ( CCA 1807 ; see CCA 1804 ; Ross v. Friedman , 269 AD2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper , 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000] ). "[A] small claims judgment may not be overturned simply because the determination appealed from involves an arguable point on which an appellate court may differ; the deviation from substantive law must be readily apparent and the court's determination clearly erroneous" ( Forte v. Bielecki , 118 AD2d 620, 621 [1986] ; see also Tranquility Salon & Day Spa, Inc. v. Caira , 141 AD3d 711, 712 [2016] ; Hohenberger v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist. , 58 Misc. 3d 6, 8 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2017] ).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice...