GUY HAD HIS EVIDENCE ON A ZIP DRIVE WHEN HE WENT TO COURT
M.A. filed a small claims action against “Foam and Wash” claiming the car wash company had damaged two of his vehicles.
After his case was dismissed by the City Court of Poughkeepsie, on the ground that M.A. had “not met his burden of proof,” the guy appealed claiming that the trial court had erred by not allowing him to admit evidence that was on a zip drive that he had brought to court with him.
On its review, the Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that the trial transcript failed to support M.A.’s contentions, in that he did not ask the trial judge to admit his videos or documents into evidence. When offered an adjournment to print the photos that were on the drive, M.A. declined and conceded that the defendant’s photographs were sufficient.
Given that he was not denied an opportunity to fully present his case, and since it deferred to the trial court’s credibility assessments, the AT2 thought the underlying determination “rendered ‘substantial justice,’” and left the outcome undisturbed.
Bet M.A. was foaming after that ….
# # #