DECISION/ORDER Claimant, OLGA PINKHASOVA, by claim filed 8/1/22 seeks to recover $9,000.00 for repairs with interest against defendant, DMITRI BOLOTIN. She actually seeks damages, including reimbursement for money she paid for defendant to install kitchen cabinets in her apartment, that she claims were installed with substandard materials and poor workmanship, such that she had the cabinets removed and replaced. Claimant was represented by counsel, defendant represented himself. The matter came on for trial on 12/13/23, on which date an action filed by defendant’s corporation seeking recovery against claimant for the work inquestion was dismissed by the Hon. Andrea Ogle as a result of defendant’s late appearance. However, claimant’s inquest, based on her calendar position had not been taken yet the matter having been sent to me, Joseph F. Kasper, for inquest. The Court permitted the late appearing defendant to defend himself. The matter was conferenced extensively, unsuccessfully, trial commenced, and the matter was continued to 1/24/24, with the assistance of a Russian Interpreter, and concluded on 3/1/24 with Decision reserved. (Defendant never, to this Courts knowledge, moved to vacate the dismissal of his corporation’s action against claimant). Claimant was represented by her daughter, who agreed not to testify as a witness so she could continue as counsel for claimant. The absence of a written contract between the parties only made the matter more difficult. The absence of a written contract now makes this case one where defendant can only satisfy his obligation by performance to the satisfaction of claimant, whatever that was. Claimant rested without offering any exchanges of text messages which might have helped form the basis of the contract. Claimant testified that defendant was recommended by her niece. She also introduced the testimony of a friend, LUBA NESTEROVA, whose testimony did little other than reinforce how unhappy claimant was with the work done. Claimant introduced several samples of materials, seeking to show the materials used were substandard, and produced copies of the checks paid to defendant (written directly to him).. Claimant produced photographs, taken on 7/22/22, of the cabinets, when they had already been removed and put in storage, which claimant testified she was paying $50.00 a month for. Claimant related that defendant estimated the job originally on 3/9/22 and she agreed to pay $4,000.00. Claimant testified that a set of cabinets that were installed were the wrong size and needed to be replaced. (It is to be noted said quoted price might be considered reasonable for “custom cabinets”.) When Defendant was asked why there was no written contract, he said he waits for the payment and then sends an invoice. Claimant testified the quality of the cabinets installed were not only of substandard material, but she believes they were second hand. “It did not look new” she testified. The Court, at defendant’s request permitted his witness YEVGEN KLOCHKOV to be called out of turn. He was defendant’s worker. He testified as to the work “we did everything as she wished”, that he tried to arrange to polish the cabinets, but was denied access to do so. He testified that he had installed some twenty kitchens, and that the cabinets were not of substandard quality, that they were from IKEA. The fact that they were from IKEA to some extent contradicts the notion of custom cabinets. Claimant’s counsel introduced the testimony of MICHAEL SICO as a would be “expert witness” who represented he had worked for “over 20 years in the construction trade”. Defendant, pro se, raised no objections to MICHAEL SICO, who testified virtually, being qualified as an expert witness. The Court listened to his testimony, for what it was worth. He did testify as to cabinet construction materials, that plywood is more expensive as opposed to “MDF” pressed wood, which he testified “shouldn’t be near water. The Court notes that Mr. SICO allegedly billed same $8,500.00 in expert witness fees” for a case where claimant was suing for $9,000.00 for which the “expert” was present in court one day where he did not testify and actually testified virtually from New Jersey on 3/1/24. (The wisdom or necessity of this “expert witness” was questionable and claimant should perhaps act to renegotiate said expert’s fee but that is not before this Court.) Ultimately, it is this Court’s conclusion, that in the absence of a written contract between the parties specifying the materials to be used to create custom cabinets, (which defendant’s witness testified were standard cabinets from IKEA), it almost becomes the equivalent of creating a work of art to the satisfaction of the claimant. Unquestionably, the claimant paid for the cabinets and unquestionably wasn’t satisfied with the work, paid to remove them, store them, and paid another contractor to replace them, and also paid a would be “expert witness” thousands of dollars besides. Perhaps if defendant is guilty of anything, it is lack of good customer relations. There is no question work was done by his workman, YEVGEN KLOCHKOV, which is why the Court is not ordering the defendant to refund all her money. But equity demands, after balancing all the circumstances, defendant Bolotin be directed to refund the sum of $3,000.00, to claimant OLGA PINKHASOVA, by bank check, and claimant is directed to permit defendant to remove the original cabinets if he wants them, and upon notice to claimant’s attorney. Defendant will indicate if he does or doesn’t want the original cabinets. Dated: May 7, 2024
