Five Stars Service Solutions Corp. and Chris Isaza, appellants pro se. Salih Akbulut, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (Bronwyn Black-Kelly, J.), entered July 27, 2023. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,716.72.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the action is dismissed.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant Five Stars Service Solutions Corp. (Five Stars) and its owner/president defendant Chris Isaza, to recover $5,000 in "Property Damage" after defendants allegedly failed to properly grade his property and install a drywell at his house. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he hired another contractor to remedy the mistakes made by defendants in failing to properly grade his backyard and install a drywell so as to prevent further flooding. Defendants argued, among other things, that there had been a prior arbitration with respect to the same work performed at plaintiff's home. In that commercial claims action filed by Five Stars, arbitration was conducted pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR) Part 28; Five Stars was awarded $3,000 for money owed for work performed; and plaintiff was awarded a $1,900 credit for "unsatisfactory results." A motion by plaintiff to vacate the judgment in that case was denied. At the close of evidence in the instant action, the District Court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $4,716.72.

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 [*2]law" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

The record does not support an award against Isaza, as owner of Five Stars, as there was no contract entered into between plaintiff and Isaza, and the evidence showed that Five Stars provided the machinery and labor for the work performed on plaintiff's property. Moreover, the District Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, lacks jurisdiction to grant the equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil (see Battle v Smith, 35 Misc 3d 126[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50566[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]).

Res judicata precludes the "reconsideration of claims actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding, as well as claims for different relief against the same party which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction, and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding" (Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2009]; see also Jacobson Dev. Group, LLC v Grossman, 198 AD3d 956 [2021]; Greenaway v Clifton & Classon Apt. Corp., 191 AD3d 958 [2016]; Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 140 AD3d 912 [2016]). Arbitration awards can have a res judicata effect (see Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d 1009).

The record here sufficiently establishes that plaintiff and Five Stars participated in the prior mandatory arbitration, that the current claim by plaintiff is based on the same facts and circumstances as in the prior arbitration, and that the claim of defective workmanship involved herein was actually litigated and adjudicated on the merits in the prior arbitration, following which defendant was credited with $1,900 (see Greenaway v Clifton & Classon Apt. Corp., 191 AD3d 958; Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 140 AD3d 912). Under the circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata precludes the relitigation of plaintiff's claim against Five Stars.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the action is dismissed.

McCORMACK, J.P., GARGUILO and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.