Opinion
XXXXX
05-17-2018
Kimm Pearce, Plaintiff, v. Salvatore Cammarata d/b/a ULTIMATE AUTO CAR SALES, Defendants.
KIMM PEARCE, pro se SALVATORE CAMMARATA d/b/a ULTIMATE AUTO CAR SALES, pro se
KIMM PEARCE, pro se SALVATORE CAMMARATA d/b/a ULTIMATE AUTO CAR SALES, pro se Michael A. Sciortino, J.
The individual parties appeared and proceeded at this small claim pro se, without legal counsel.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiff, KIMM PEARCE, (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") commenced this small claim in the Justice Court for the Town of Parma, County of Monroe, in the amount of $2,508.52 for, according to the Small Claims Complaint Form, "Purchased 2005 Saturn Vue, had issues w/ Clutch/Cables, Ultimate would not fix, I paid for repairs at AAMCO." Plaintiff filed the small claim against SALVATORE CAMMARATA, individually and in his capacity as an owner doing business as Ultimate Auto Car Sales ("defendant"). The Court Clerk properly served the Notice of Small Claim by mailing it by certified mail and by first class mail. See, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §214.10(e). The parties participated in a fair and impartial hearing of this small claim on April 17, 2018, and each witness was properly sworn under oath prior to providing any testimony to the Court. The Court confirmed that the defendant either resides within, is employed within, or has an office for the transaction of business within the municipality-the Town of Parma, giving rise to this Court's jurisdiction. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §213(a) (McKinney's 2018). At the hearing of the small claim, the parties presented evidence in their own behalf, including testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant. Plaintiff introduced, and this Court received eight (8) pieces of documentary evidence. Defendant introduced, and this Court received five (5) pieces of documentary evidence.
Preliminarily, the Court amends the caption of the action pursuant to Uniform Justice Court Act §1814(c) to reflect the true parties. Following a reasonable inquiry by the Court it was determined that the proper party is "Salvatore Cammarata d/b/a Ultimate Auto Car Sales". It is well settled that a plaintiff may bring an action in small claims court against any business defendant "in any name used by it in conducting business." See, Uniform Justice Court Act § 1814 (McKinney's 2018). If the court determines defendant's true name at the hearing, the law permits the court to amend all papers to conform to such determination so as to assist a prevailing plaintiff in enforcing the judgment. Here, the evidence at the hearing established that plaintiff filed the small claim against "Ultimate Auto Car Sales a/k/a Ultimate Auto Details — Owners: Sal Cammarata and Kim Cammarata." Following the reasonable inquiry, the Court amends the caption to the proper party of "Salvatore Cammarata d/b/a Ultimate Auto Car Sales", the defendant in this case. See, Katz v. Rodolfo Valentin Salon, Spa & Hairpieces, 3 Misc 3d 126(A) (App Term 2d Dep't. 2004); Talley v. Peck, 48 Misc 3d 142(A) (App Term 2d Dep't. 2015); Bennett v. Class N' Style Travel & Limousine Ltd., 23 Misc 3d 8 (App Term 2d Dep't. 2009). The caption of this matter has been amended accordingly.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The relevant facts in this matter demonstrate that the plaintiff and defendant executed a Vehicle Cash Purchase Agreement on November 22, 2017 (the "Agreement") for the sale of a 2005 Saturn Vue with odometer mileage of 83,055 miles (the "Vehicle"). See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Plaintiff paid a total of $4,700 which included the $4,200 purchase price, sales tax, registration fee, and inspection fee. See id. When plaintiff picked up the Vehicle, she testified that it had an Inspection Sticker noting an Odometer Reading of 83,344 miles on the vehicle. See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. Plaintiff also introduced evidence that demonstrated that the defendant had advertised that "This Cue [sic] has a brand new clutch, tires and brakes .Fully serviced and ready to go." See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. However, plaintiff then testified that this statement was inaccurate and in need of repairs, as provided for in the estimate from Mr. Tire. See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Plaintiff returned the Vehicle to defendant who repaired the brakes for the plaintiff. Plaintiff also requested that the defendant repair the clutch to the vehicle as she states it was not in good working order. When defendant advised the time to repair the clutch in full, plaintiff removed the vehicle from the defendant and transported the vehicle to AAMCO who performed the repairs and according to the two receipts submitted by plaintiff for the total of $2,508.52, plaintiff's claim. See, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and 6. Plaintiff's testimony and chronological list of events was consistent with the text messages (Plaintiff's Exhibit 7) and email correspondence (Plaintiff's Exhibit 8) that was printed by the plaintiff and received into evidence by the Court.
Defendant also testified that along with the Agreement (Defendant's Exhibit A), the Retail Certificate of Sale (Defendant's Exhibit B), the defendant also provided plaintiff with the Limited Warranty — New York State Used Vehicle Dealer information that is required consistent with state law ("Limited Warranty"). See, Defendant's Exhibit C. The Limited Warranty form had the Odometer Reading as 83,349 miles on the vehicle. See id. Defendant testified that he did repair any issues the plaintiff was having with her brakes and was willing to provide her with additional assistance to repair the clutch, even though the clutch was not a covered part under her Limited Warranty. See id. It is noted that the Limited Warranty based on the mileage of the vehicle which was above 80,000 miles, is "thirty (30) days after delivery or one thousand (1,000) miles, whichever comes first. See id. As the plaintiff had the vehicle removed from the defendant's business and transported to AAMCO for repair, the plaintiff did not permit the defendant to conduct any additional repairs to her vehicle.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The purpose of a small claims procedure is to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1804 (McKinney's 2018); see, Hampton v. Annal Management Co., Ltd., 164 Misc 2d 287 (City Civ. Ct. 1994), appeal dismissed, 168 Misc 2d 138 (App. Term 1996). Small Claims Court is designed to provide litigants with a simple, informal and inexpensive procedure for the prompt determination of claims. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1802 (McKinney's 2018). Although procedural rules may be relaxed, cases must be decided according to the rules and principles of substantive law. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1804. This Court is bound by this standard; a standard which has been supported throughout many terms of this Court and others similarly situated throughout New York State. Accordingly, the goal of this Court throughout this entire proceeding is to ensure that substantial justice is done between the parties relying on the sound principles of statutory and case law; in doing so, this Court is required to deliberate upon the facts and apply the law to those facts.
Under New York law, even in the relatively informal atmosphere of small claims court, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing her case by a preponderance of the evidence. See, Naclerio v. Adjunct Faculty, 1 Misc 3d 135 (Appellate Term 2003); see also, Rodriguez v Mitch's Transmission, 32 Misc 3d 126 (Appellate Term 2011). In other words, plaintiff must prove her case by the greater weight of the evidence. If the testimony is evenly balanced, judgment must be rendered against the plaintiff. Here, plaintiff did not meet her burden of establishing a basis of liability on the part of defendant.
The New York State Limited Warranty ("Used Car Lemon Law") provides, in sum and substance, that where a dealer fails to correct certain defects which substantially impair the value of a used motor vehicle, the dealer must accept the return of the vehicle and refund the purchase price. See, General Business Law §198. Here, this particular defendant is subject to the Used Car Lemon Law because defendant is a used car dealer. See, Bulsara v. Chami, 51 Misc 3d 143 (Appellate Term 2016). The statutory language relating to the Used Car Lemon Law is indeed very clear in stating the terms under which parts are specifically covered, and how long after purchase for which these parts will be covered. See, Defendant's Exhibit C. New York law does not warranty the clutch and related parts as a "Parts Covered" under the "Power Train Systems" portion of the warranty related to "B. Transmission". To the contrary, the Used Car Lemon Law expressly states that the clutch and related parts plaintiff is claiming for are "Parts Not Covered" under the Used Car Lemon Law. As such, plaintiff has not presented sufficient proof that the parts or mechanical systems that she had repaired by AAMCO for $2,508.52 are "Parts Covered" under the warranty that attached to this vehicle by law-namely, the Used Car Lemon Law within the New York State Limited Warranty.
To the plaintiff's benefit however, the court also considered whether the plaintiff proved a case for common law fraudulent misrepresentation. In a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must establish (1) a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant (2) that the misrepresentation or omission was made intentionally for the purpose of misleading the plaintiff (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff on the misrepresentation or omission, and (4) injury or damage as a result of the misrepresentation or omission. See, Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173 [2011]; see also, P.T. Bank v. ABM, 301 AD2d 373 (1st Dept. 2003). Here, plaintiff did not establish that defendant falsely misrepresented the condition of the vehicle. Defendant disputed plaintiff's testimony and introduced exhibits that that the clutch was purchased new and installed on the vehicle prior to her purchase. See, Defendant's Exhibit D and E. Further, the plaintiff did take the vehicle for a test drive prior to purchase and had the option to have the vehicle inspected by a licensed mechanic but did not have the vehicle inspected. If defendant would not allow plaintiff to have the vehicle inspected by a licensed mechanic before the sale was completed for example, then that would send a red flag of caution and plaintiff's remedy would be to choose to not go forward with the purchase. See, Dorneles v. Carpenito, 137 Misc 2d 469 (1987). There is simply insufficient proof for the court to conclude that defendant intentionally misled plaintiff by making a misrepresentation or material omission which was false and known to be false. Compare, Arnold v. Stanton, 46 Misc 3d 136 (NY App Term 2014).
Based upon the credible testimony of the plaintiff and defendants, and the documentary evidence introduced, this Court concludes that the principles and rules of substantive law along with the purpose of substantial justice compel a determination that plaintiff has no cause of action in this Court that would entitle plaintiff to damages on this small claim against the defendant. In short, it cannot be said that plaintiff met her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence her entitlement to the requested relief under New York statutory law or New York common law governing the sale of used vehicles.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's small claim against Defendant is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
For the benefit of the parties to this small claim, review of this Court's Decision, Order, and Final Judgment may be taken consistent with Uniform Justice Court Act §1807. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1807 (McKinney's 2018). Moreover, pursuant to Uniform Justice Court Act §1703(b), "An appeal as of right from a judgment entered in a small claim or a commercial claim must be taken within thirty days of the following, whichever first occurs:
1. service by the court of a copy of the judgment appealed from upon the appellant.
2. service by a party of a copy of the judgment appealed from upon the appellant.
3. service by the appellant of a copy of the judgment appealed from upon a party.
Where service as provided in paragraphs one through three of this subdivision is by mail, five days shall be added to the thirty day period prescribed in this section. See, Uniform Justice Court Act §1703(b) (McKinney's 2018).
This constitutes the Decision, Order, and Final Judgment of the Justice Court in the Town of Parma, County of Monroe, State of New York. DATED: May 17, 2018 Hilton, New York ________________________________ HON. MICHAEL A. SCIORTINO Town Justice, Town of Parma