Mezzatesta v. Scott David Jeshiva Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Anthony J. Mezzatesta and Kristin N. Leis, Respondents, against Scott David Jeshiva Plumbing and Heating, Inc., Appellant. Scott David Jeshiva Plumbing and Heating, Inc., appellant pro se. Anthony J. Mezzatesta and Kristin N. Leis, respondents pro se. Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Elizabeth Fox-McDonough, J.), entered September 13, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,725 and dismissed defendant's "counterclaim." ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $2,100, representing their payment to defendant of a 50% deposit on a plumbing project that defendant allegedly never performed, and defendant asserted a "counterclaim" to retain the sum of $1,725 of the $2,100 deposit. At a nonjury trial, plaintiffs testified that no physical work had been done but that defendant's president had been to their house once to look at the site, make a quote for the job, and drop off $100 in materials, and once for 15 minutes to meet with their masonry contractor. Defendant's president testified that he had performed nine hours of work on the project, which he calculated at a value of $1,225, before plaintiffs terminated their relationship. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the District Court awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,725 and dismissing its "counterclaim." 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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2006]). In light of the conclusory testimony of defendant's president in support of defendant's claim of services rendered and their value (see Home Constr. Corp. v Beaury, 149 AD3d 699 [2017]), we find that the District Court's determination is supported by the record and that the judgment provides substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. TOLBERT, J.P., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: January 30, 2020