The case of D. v. M. centers on a dispute over property damage allegedly caused by an animal boarded at the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff initiated a small claims action seeking compensation for the damage, describing the defendant as a "tenant." However, when the case was brought before the Putnam Valley Justice Court, the judge dismissed it without allowing the plaintiff to present any documentary or testimonial evidence, citing "lack of privity" as the reason.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, found that dismissal was improper. The plaintiff’s claim was based on either tortious or contractual liability. Additionally, the court noted that the subsequent sale of the damaged property did not eliminate the plaintiff’s right to pursue compensation, as the damage had occurred before the sale. The AT2 determined that the Justice Court’s refusal to hear evidence and its premature dismissal of the case did not serve the interests of justice.
As a result, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remitted the matter for a trial, ensuring that the plaintiff would have the opportunity to present her case.
There was no muzzling that case ...
# # #
DECISION