Opinion
2019-1507 K C
04-23-2021
Cynthia B. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. TD AMERITRADE, Respondent.
Cynthia B. Mitchell, appellant pro se. TD Ameritrade, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Cynthia B. Mitchell, appellant pro se.
TD Ameritrade, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $5,000 from defendant brokerage firm based on defendant's issuance to her of a form 1099 tax form which, she contends, erroneously included the required minimum distributions from her Individual Retirement Account for calendar years 2014 and 2015 instead of a single year's distribution, and thus inflated her taxable income and her tax rate for one year. At a nonjury trial of this matter, plaintiff indicated that she also seeks an order compelling defendant to issue a revised form 1099 for calendar year 2015. Following the trial, the court dismissed the action.
In a small claims action, this court's 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 [2000] ).
In 2017, plaintiff prevailed in a small claims action against defendant that was premised on the same claim as the present action (Mitchell v TD Ameritrade , index No. 2250 SCK 2017 [Civ Ct, Kings County]) (the 2017 action), and defendant paid plaintiff the sum of $5,000 awarded in the judgment entered therein. At the trial of this action, plaintiff failed to differentiate this action from the 2017 action. Under the doctrine of res judicata, plaintiff was precluded from suing defendant again on the very same claim (see CCA 1808 ; Silva v Lee , 55 Misc 3d 128[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50369[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). We note that the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court is limited to causes of action "for money only" ( CCA 1801 ; see Solages v National Grid , 66 Misc 3d 1, 2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]), and that the court thus lacked jurisdiction to grant the injunctive relief plaintiff requested at trial. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the action rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807).
We note that we do not consider any material which is dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl , 152 AD2d 508 [1989] ).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.