Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Citation
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Parent Document
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2020-01-30
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
Full Text
626 charsWith respect to the $1,000 cost to repair the floor, defendant testified that the damage to her floor had been caused by plaintiff. Defendant submitted into evidence an itemized receipt [*3]that was marked paid in full, which constitutes prima facie evidence of the necessity and reasonable value of the services rendered (see UDCA 1804). Although plaintiff presented conflicting testimony, the court apparently found the testimony of defendant to be more credible than plaintiff's. We find that the oral determination that defendant was entitled to recoup her $1,000 expense in repairing the floor is supported by the record.