Opinion
No. 2013–1386 N C.
2014-10-1
Robert Michael PERLMAN, Respondent, v. BRUSSELS AIRLINES, Appellant.
Present: IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and GARGUILO, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Eric Bjorneby, J.), entered March 5, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $2,900, the amount he and his wife expended as a result of a delay in the arrival of plaintiff's baggage carried by defendant airline. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified as to the circumstances surrounding the delay in the arrival of his baggage in Europe and the expenses he incurred as a result thereof. Defendant was represented by counsel, but presented no witnesses. After trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,000.
The Montreal Convention, which governs an airline's liabilities related to international air transportation, provides in article 19 that a carrier is liable for damages occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of luggage unless it can prove that it took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it to take such measures. Contrary to defendant's contention on appeal, plaintiff made out a prime facie case pursuant to article 19 of the Montreal Convention when he established that his luggage had been delayed for several days, that he had been inconvenienced and that he had had no other choice but to purchase various necessary items while in a foreign country. Defendant failed to establish that it had taken all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it to take such measures. Thus, liability pursuant to article 19 of the Montreal Convention was demonstrated.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law ( see UDCA 1804, 1807; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [2000] ).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.