Opinion
2014–1908 S C.
04-26-2016
Thomas TIERNEY, Appellant, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. and Paul Schappert, Respondents.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District
(C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated July 10, 2014. The order granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced a prior small claims action against defendant Home Depot U.S.A. (Home Depot) and one of its employees, alleging that Home Depot had sold him a patio door that was the wrong size. While that action was pending, Home Depot offered to take back the door. Plaintiff declined Home Depot's offer and proceeded to trial, after which the prior action was dismissed on the ground that the door delivered by Home Depot was the door that plaintiff had ordered and that plaintiff had already had the door installed by his own contractor.
Plaintiff thereafter commenced the instant small claims action against Home Depot and another one of its employees seeking to enforce the offer, made by Home Depot during the prior small claims action, to accept the return of the door. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the action on the ground of res judicata, stating that the claim at issue had already been litigated. In opposition, plaintiff argued that the present claim was not the same as in the prior action, since the present claim is for breach of a settlement offer. The District Court granted defendants' motion, finding that plaintiff's claim that Home Depot had “reneged” on a settlement offer, which had never matured into a firm binding agreement, is not a cognizable cause of action.
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” (UDCA 1807 ; see UDCA 1804 ; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 126, 126 [2000] ).
As the settlement offer made by Home Depot in the prior action was not accepted by plaintiff prior to Home Depot's revocation of its offer, and indeed plaintiff proceeded to trial in the prior action, the instant action seeking to recover on the revoked and unaccepted settlement offer, which is unenforceable, was properly dismissed.
Accordingly, as the order provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807 ), it is affirmed.
MARANO, P.J., and GARGUILO, J., concur.