Mujica v. Jerome-Human, 2018-1315 K C

• Decision Date: 06 December 2019
• Docket Number: 2018-1315 K C
• Citation: 65 Misc.3d 158 (A),119 N.Y.S.3d 812 (Table)
• Parties: Cristina MUJICA, Appellant, v. Yves JEROME-HUMAN, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

65 Misc.3d 158 (A)

119 N.Y.S.3d 812 (Table)

Cristina MUJICA, Appellant,

v.Yves JEROME-HUMAN, Respondent.

2018-1315 K C

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.

Decided December 6, 2019

Cristina Mujica, appellant pro se.

Jalila A. Bell, Esq., for respondent.

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 as a result of defendant's alleged breach of a contract. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff a judgment in the principal sum of $2,500, and plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy.

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 [2006] ).

A review of the record indicates that substantial justice was not done between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807). "Although the procedures in Small Claims Court are relaxed, the rules of substantive law must be followed and a person's constitutional right to due process of law includes the basic right to cross-examine witnesses" ( Graves v. American Express , 175 Misc 2d 285, 286 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1997] ). Here, the court did not allow plaintiff the opportunity to cross-examine defendant, as was her right pursuant to substantive law (see Fachlaev v. Hopkins , 38 Misc 3d 131[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52419[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; Moon v. Khazraie , 11 Misc 3d 131[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50348[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]; Rizopoulos v. Cartelli , 4 Misc 3d 127[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50619[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004] ).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

PESCE, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.