Opinion
No. 2021-530 Q C
11-18-2022
Budharapu Rao, Appellant, v. Emirates Airlines, Respondent.
Budharapu Rao, appellant pro se. Emirates Airlines, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
Budharapu Rao, appellant pro se.
Emirates Airlines, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Wendy Changyong Li, J.), entered August 3, 2021. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action without prejudice.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $1,500 based on the alleged failure of defendant airline to honor the return portion of his round-trip ticket from New York to Hyderabad, India. The trial of the matter was conducted virtually. At the nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he had purchased his ticket from defendant's agent, JustFly.com (JustFly). On the date of his outbound flight, plaintiff went to the airport but became ill and was unable to fly. Plaintiff stated that he had been told at the airport that his outbound ticket would therefore be cancelled, but that his return ticket would be valid. When he was again healthy, he purchased a one-way outbound ticket from a different airline. While in Hyderabad, he had received confirmation from defendant that his return ticket was valid; however, at the airport, defendant refused to honor the ticket and plaintiff was compelled to purchase a replacement one-way ticket from Hyderabad to New York. In response to questions from the court, plaintiff said he had telephoned JustFly when he realized he would be unable to take the outgoing flight, and had been informed that he could neither change his flight nor obtain a refund and that he had to buy a new ticket. Plaintiff also denied that JustFly had provided him with the terms and conditions that attached to his ticket or with a link to those terms and conditions.
Defendant's representative claimed that plaintiff had to have been informed of the terms and conditions that attached to his ticket, and that, under those terms and conditions, for the price of $200, plaintiff could have exchanged his outgoing ticket, but that, having failed to use the outgoing portion of the ticket, he had not been entitled to use the return portion. She did not dispute that JustFly was defendant's agent.
Following the trial, the court dismissed the action without prejudice, upon a finding that JustFly was a necessary party to the lawsuit.
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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [2000]). Since it was undisputed that JustFly had acted as defendant's disclosed agent in all its dealings with plaintiff, we conclude that JustFly was not a necessary party to this breach of contract action (see Durante Bros. Constr. Corp. v St. John's Cemetery, 285 A.D.2d 578, 579-580 [2001]; see also Rottman v El Al Israel Airlines, 18 Misc.3d 885 [Civ Ct, NY County 2008]; 2A NY Jur 2d, Agency § 325), and that the Civil Court's dismissal of the matter without prejudice based on the failure to join a necessary party failed to render substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.