Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Carmel, Putnam County (J. Spofford Jr., J.), entered February 8, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought this small claims action against his nephew, Paolo Bertin, to recover the value of personal property alleged to have been removed by Paolo Bertin from a premises jointly owned by plaintiff and his mother. Paolo Bertin testified that he had no knowledge that any of the property discarded, an engine or engine parts, books, and certain telephone equipment, belonged exclusively to plaintiff, and that he acted solely to assist his aunt, who, as plaintiff acknowledged, was at the time his mother's
guardian and on whose behalf she held the power of attorney, to remove only such property as had been so damaged by water, vermin infestation, or other agency, as to pose a health and safety risk. We need not decide whether, under such circumstances, defendant bears any liability for the loss, as the court determined, properly in our view, that plaintiff failed to establish the property's value.

Plaintiff's only proof of the value of the engine was plaintiff's representation that a California dealer quoted a price of $650, not including "shipping costs," evidently for a complete engine. This evidence, entirely hearsay, was insufficient to establish proof of value. Notwithstanding that a small claims court is not bound by the rules of evidence (UJCA 1804), such a judgment may not rest wholly on hearsay (e.g. Haff v F&J Transmissions, Inc., 4 Misc 3d 142[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51070[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

With respect to the books and telephone equipment, while an owner of personal property, "familiar with its quality and condition, may testify as to its value" (Korn v American Airlines, Inc., 11 Misc 3d 87, 88-89 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see Fassett v Fassett, 101 AD2d [*2]604, 605 [1984]; 36 NY Jur 2d, Damages §§ 82, 87), such testimony must include some evidence of factors pertinent to establishing a reasonable monetary value to the owner, such as the books' original cost, their age and condition at the time of the conversion, and replacement cost (Correa v Midtown Moving, 4 Misc 3d 135[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50798[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]; see also Kodak v American Airlines, 9 Misc 3d 107, 110 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]), to the exclusion of "sentimental or emotional loss consequent upon [their] destruction" (Kennedy v McEsson Co., 58 NY2d 500, 507 [1983]). As noted, defendant testified that all of the property removed was damaged and that there was no indication which, if any of the books were plaintiff's exclusive property. Plaintiff asserted merely that he considered the books to be worth $100, offering no basis for that valuation. As for the telephone, telephone wires and outlets, the only proof of damages, a bill evidently recording the cost of installation some years before, is not part of the record, and plaintiff made no representation as to the cost of restoring the phone system, or even that he had restored the service. Accordingly, the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1804, 1807).

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 2, 2007