JUST FOR THE RECORD

In Cullimore v. Buchanan , Mr. Cullimore sought to recover $3,000 for water damage that was allegedly attributable to Buchanan's defective installation of a bay window. Buchanan countered that the leakage was not caused by any faulty work on his part, but was triggered by the improper alignment of the shingles on the homeowner's roof. When the dispute was dismissed by the Justice Court of the Village of Wappingers Falls, Cullimore appealed.

Interestingly, the Appellate Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, found it could not undertake an independent review of the case, as there was no trial record, stenographic minutes, or any appropriate transcript of the testimony. As a result, the appellate court was compelled to reverse the dismissal and remanded the case for a new trial.

The AT noted that customarily a clerk of the court or the judge who presided over the case will prepare a statement setting forth the substance of the proceeding, which is sufficiently descriptive of the testimony to make appellate review possible. If that standard is not met, as was the case here, then a case will need to be retried.

So, to avoid a needless "do-over," why wouldn't a judge want to make sure everything is done right, "on the record," the first time around?

For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Cullimore v. Buchanan