ADDITIONAL CASES Luis Alcala, Claimant v. GDG Laundromat LLC DBA Laundry King Super Store, Defendant; SC 000074-21/KI DECISION/ORDER The trial of the above matter was held on August 11, 2022. On consent of the parties the matters under Index number SC 000794-20/KI and Index SC 000074-21/KI were consolidated for trial as indicated above. Claimant Luis Alcala appeared pro se. Defendant appeared pro se, by Henry Alton as the owner and authorized representative of Defendant Laundry King, GDG Laundromat LLC DBA Laundry King Super Store. The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim filed on March 4, 2020 alleging damages of $1,000 under index no. SC 000794-20 from 1/25/19 and Statement of Claim filed on January 14, 2021 alleging damages for $3,500 under index number SC 00074-21. Defendant appeared, testified in support of his defense and cross examined the claimant at trial. Plaintiff sues defendant for negligence for damages to his clothing left with defendant for cleaning and for a lost coat that was a gift to him. Plaintiff testified and submitted evidence marked as exhibits as follows: Exhibit A) photographs of shirts; B) receipts; C) bank statements showing payment to laundry king; D) sample Laundry King receipt; E) portion of the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs file (“NYCDCA”); F) a written note to defendant requesting a credit of $75. for 3 shirts and pants where he valued each item at $15. each and service paid of $3.75. Claimant testified that he was a customer of defendant and brought certain items of clothing to be washed and dry cleaned to defendant Laundry King. Claimant left nine (9) shirts with defendant for dry cleaning in January 2019. After he picked up the shirts, he noticed they were discolored due to bleach or starch stains. He testified he paid $35. for each shirt at Macys but did not have receipts. He testified twelve (12) pants were damaged and nine (9) sweaters were shrunk due to washing but did not produce any evidence in support of alleged damages to these items. He testified his bank statement showed he paid $55.90 to wash the sweaters on 10/21/19. He also claims damages for a Chap men’s suit cost $300. and 2 pants lost at cost of $35 each. He claims he had no receipts because there was a fire in his apartment in January 2019. Claimant also testified that he brought in a brand new coat for dry cleaning given to him as a gift. Despite his not receiving any refund for damaged items, he continued to bring his clothes to defendant because the workers were like family. However, he did not produce any admissible evidence in support of his claim for the lost coat and other clothing. Claimant filed a complaint with NYCDCA and defendant responded. However, no resolution was reached. Defendant testified and admitted that claimant was defendant’s customer. However, he denied any negligence or damage. Defendant at first told NYCDCA that claimant was only a wash and fold customer, but later verified he had dry cleaning done. Defendant offered to clean the shirts free of charge and stated claimant kept adding to his claim. Defendant submitted a sample laundry king receipt with a limitation of liability clause on the back in small light gray print marked as Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss claimant’s case for failure to make out a prima facie case was reserved after trial. Defendant also argued that the action should be dismissed or his damages limited based on the limitation of liability clause on the back of the claim receipt provided to customers that states, in sum and substance that ‘defendant’s liability for lost articles is limited to 20x the value of the price paid for the service’. Based on the credible testimony and evidence presented, at trial, claimant proffered competent evidence of the amount of his damages as to claimant’s shirts by establishing such factors as the original purchase price of the shirts, their condition at the time they were delivered to defendant, age and extent of damage done (Melendez v. Panache Cleaners, Inc., 2003 N.Y. Slip Op 51041[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]; see 36 N.Y. Jur 2d, Damages §86). Accordingly, claimant is awarded $35. per shirt and $3.75 for dry cleaning service paid per shirt for a total of $348.75. For the sweaters, claimant is awarded $55.90 for the service he paid for washing of the sweaters. However, since no evidence was produced regarding the other items of clothing claimed to have been damaged or lost, the court finds that claimant failed to prove his prima facie case as to those items. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that Judgment is granted to Claimant in the amount of $404.65 with interest and costs from January 25, 2019; and it is further ORDERED, that this matter is consolidated and the Clerk is directed to file this Decision and Order under both index numbers. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: August 16, 2022
