Roundtree v. Singh
| Decision Date | 31 October 1988 |
| Citation | 533 N.Y.S.2d 609,143 A.D.2d 995 |
| Parties | Margaret C. ROUNDTREE, Respondent, v. Surendra SINGH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edward S. Marshall, Floral Park, for appellant.
Margaret C. Roundtree, Jamaica, pro se.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, BROWN and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated October 6, 1987, which modified a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, entered December 18, 1986, in Queens County (Nahman, J.), to the extent of reinstating a cause of action for loss of use of a motor vehicle and remitting the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages on that cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the provision of the judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County, dismissing the cause of action for loss of use of a motor vehicle is reinstated.
In order to prove her claims for loss of use the plaintiff was required to offer expert testimony as to the cost of renting a replacement vehicle for the period reasonably required to make repairs to her damaged vehicle (see, Hoover v. Montanus, 108 Misc.2d 916, 918, 439 N.Y.S.2d 263; Central Greyhound Lines of N.Y. v. Bonded Freightways, 193 Misc. 320, 323, 82 N.Y.S.2d 671; 8 NY Jur 2d, Automobiles, § 787; cf., Allanson v. Cummings, 81 A.D.2d 16, 21, 439 N.Y.S.2d 545). The proof offered by the plaintiff at trial fell far short of the established standard for demonstrating loss-of-use damages. The plaintiff did not introduce any competent expert testimony nor did she provide any documentation to support her statement as to the actual rental value of the substitute vehicle. The plaintiff also did not make any effort to prove that the rental period was reasonable. On the record before us, it would be impermissible speculation to make an award for the loss of use (see, e.g., Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 108 A.D.2d 132, 135-136, 489 N.Y.S.2d 939, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 257, 502 N.Y.S.2d 131, 493 N.E.2d 234; Schanbarger v. Dott's Garage, 72 A.D.2d 882, 421 N.Y.S.2d 937, lv. denied 49 N.Y.2d 701, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 403 N.E.2d 187; Schneider v. State of New York, 38 A.D.2d 628, 327 N.Y.S.2d 60). Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's cause of action for loss of use.
We agree with Presiding Justice Kassoff's dissenting opinion at the Appellate Term that a new trial should not be ordered in the interest of justice to afford the plaintiff an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahar v. US XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC.
...renting a replacement vehicle for the period reasonably required to make repairs to the damaged vehicle." Roundtree v. Singh, 143 A.D.2d 995, 995, 533 N.Y.S.2d 609 (2d Dep't 1988). As part of this showing, the owner must provide proof that the rental period was reasonable and that there was......
-
Diaz v. N.Y. Comprehensive Cardiology, PLLC
...It is often said, “A litigant appearing pro se acquires no greater rights than any other litigant.” ( See Roundtree v. Singh, 143 A.D.2d 995, 996, 533 N.Y.S.2d 609 [2d Dept.1988];see also Matter of Evert, 72 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 900 N.Y.S.2d 342 [2d Dept.2010].) Such a laudable principle of f......
-
Clark v. Basco
...653, 653–654, 665 N.Y.S.2d 978 [1997],lv. denied91 N.Y.2d 810, 670 N.Y.S.2d 404, 693 N.E.2d 751 [1998], quoting Roundtree v. Singh, 143 A.D.2d 995, 996, 533 N.Y.S.2d 609 [1988] ...
-
Dorian v. City of N.Y.
...[1998]), the law is well settled that a pro se litigant "acquires no greater right than any other litigant" (Roundtree v Singh, 143 A.D.2d 995, 996 [2d Dept. 1988]) "and will be held to the same standards of proof as those who are represented by counsel" (Duffen v. State of New York, 245 A.......