The case of M. v. T* Auto Repair centers on a dispute over an alleged failure to replace a catalytic converter in the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff, AM, sought to recover $5,000, claiming that he had paid the defendant, an auto repair shop, to replace the catalytic converter in his 2011 Hyundai Sonata, but later discovered that the part had not been changed.
During the trial, AM testified that after the repair was completed, he took his car to a Hyundai dealership for additional work, where he was informed that the catalytic converter had never been replaced. He presented photographic evidence showing the old catalytic converter still in place. The defendant countered that the vehicle contained two catalytic converters—one in the front and one in the back—and that AM had specifically requested only the front one be replaced due to financial constraints. The shop owners testified that they had replaced the front catalytic converter, which allowed the car to start and pass inspection. They also provided photographs indicating which part had been replaced.
The Nassau County District Court ultimately dismissed AM’s claim, finding that the repair shop had fulfilled its obligation based on the agreement with the plaintiff.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the outcome, giving significant weight to the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented, determining that substantial justice had been served.
Was there no converting that into a win?
# # #
DECISION