Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts.
Kevin JONES, Appellant,
v.
JEFF’S EXPRESS MOVING, STORAGE & TRUCKING, Respondent.
No. 2013–2629 K C. | Sept. 30, 2015.
Present: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ.
Opinion

*1 Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered July 23, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 for damage allegedly caused to plaintiff’s furniture and other household items. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether “substantial justice has … been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [2000] ). A review of the record indicates that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing his alleged damages. Pursuant to CCA 1804, plaintiff was required to submit an itemized bill or invoice, receipted or marked paid, or two itemized estimates, as evidence of the reasonable value and necessity of repairs, but failed to do so (see Henderson v. Holley, 112 A.D.2d 190 [1985]; Correa v. Midtown Moving, 4 Misc.3d 135[A], 2004 N.Y. Slip Op 50798[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]; see also Bertin v. Bertin, 14 Misc.3d 144[A] 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 50392[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] ). Plaintiff also failed to establish the condition and value of the furniture that could not be repaired, immediately before the damage had occurred (see generally Gass v. Agate Ice Cream, 264 N.Y. 141 [1934]; Johnson v. Scholz, 276 App.Div. 163 [1949] ). As the record supports the Civil Court’s determination, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d at 126).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.