Case ID: misc2d_175/html/0519-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[670 NYS2d 671]
    Frank Marino, Appellant, v N.A.S. Plumbing & Heating Contractors, Inc., Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    October 31, 1997
    
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      David Gevanter, Hicksville, for appellant.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court below properly permitted the corporate defendant to interpose a counterclaim in this small claims action (see, Bovasso v Anchor S. Shore Oldsmobile, NYLJ, July 3, 1984, at 12, col 3 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). As this court stated: “[n] either the applicable statute (see, UDCA 1809 [1]) nor policy considerations preclude the interposition in a small claims action of a corporate defendant counterclaim falling within the court’s monetary jurisdiction (see, UDCA 1805 [d]) which is related to the main claim and not overly complex, such as involved herein” (supra; see also, Collins v Hayes Motor Sales, NYLJ, Sept. 6, 1983, at 14, col 1 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; Cano v L.I.L.C.O., 113 Misc 2d 411). To the extent that the cases of Hayden v L.I.L. Co. (116 Misc 2d 445) and Manson v Ficara (118 Misc 2d 74) are to the contrary, we decline to follow these. Moreover, there is no basis upon this record to disturb the award of $1,575 to defendant on its counterclaim, which the court properly offset against the award of $1,600 in favor of plaintiff on its claim.

DiPaola, P. J., Collins and Ingrassia, JJ., concur.