Senatore v. Wellington, 2015 NY Slip Op 50700 - NY: Appellate Term, 2nd Dept. 2015

PRESENT: IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (Frank Mora, J.), entered January 29, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,907.92.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the City Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $5,000. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that her two-month-old car had been totaled in a collision and that she had lost three days from work as a result of injuries she had sustained in the collision. It was undisputed that defendant had caused the accident; that plaintiff's insurer had paid plaintiff the book value of her car at the time immediately prior to the accident, as well as three days' wages; and that plaintiff's insurer had been reimbursed by defendant's insurer. Plaintiff sought to recover, however, for the $3,619.92 difference between the insurance payment she had received and the outstanding amount of her automobile loan for the demolished car. She also testified that she had taken a day off from work to purchase a replacement vehicle, and sought to recover $288 in lost wages.

Following the trial, the City Court awarded judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,907.92.

"The measure of damages for injury to property resulting from negligence is the difference in the market value immediately before and immediately after the accident, or the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition, whichever is the lesser'" (Parkoff v Stavsky, 109 AD3d 646, 647 [2013], quoting Johnson v Scholz, 276 App Div 163, 164 [1949]). Here, plaintiff received the fair market value of the demolished car.

It is a fundamental principle of tort law that defendants are only responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, and not those consequences which are remote and indirect (see Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 [1928]; see also 103 NY Jur 2d, Torts § 10; 36 NY Jur 2d, Damages § 11). Since defendant caused the accident that wrecked plaintiff's car, defendant's liability for the fair market value of her car immediately prior to the accident was a natural, probable and direct consequence of his negligence. Defendant could not reasonably have been expected to foresee, however, that plaintiff's car loan exceeded the value of her car; nor did plaintiff's lost wages for a day spent shopping for a new car fall within the zone of foreseeability for which a defendant in a negligence action is held to be accountable (see Price v Luhrs, 37 Misc 3d 834 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2012]; Jacobs v Herrera, 4 Misc 3d 1018[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50929[U] [Dist Ct, Nassau County 2004]; see also Parkoff v Stavsky, 109 AD3d 646).

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" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Since plaintiff failed to establish a basis upon which to hold defendant liable for the claims she asserted in this action, the action should have been dismissed. Consequently, we conclude that the judgment in favor of plaintiff failed to render substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the City Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.