You are here: / / Where Plaintiff’s Vehicle Repaired to Pre-Accident Condition, No Additional R...

Where Plaintiff’s Vehicle Repaired to Pre-Accident Condition, No Additional Recovery for Diminution in Resale Value

Plaintiff’s brand new Mercedes was damaged in an accident but was fully repaired, and the repairs were paid for by the defendants’ insurance carrier.  Plaintiff sought damages based upon the diminution in resale value resulting from the fact that potential buyers would be made aware of the car’s involvement in the accident.  The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint explaining that diminution in resale value is not to be taken into account:

The defendants established that the plaintiff has no cause of action to recover the damages he seeks herein. “The measure of damages for injury to property resulting from negligence is the difference in the market value immediately before and immediately after the accident, or the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition, whichever is the lesser” … . “Where the repairs do not restore the property to its condition before the accident, the difference in market value immediately before the accident and after the repairs have been made may be added to the cost of repairs” … . However, where, as here, there is no dispute that the repairs fully restored the vehicle to its condition before the accident, and the only basis of the claim made by the plaintiff for the difference in value immediately before and immediately after the accident is not that his automobile could not be fully repaired, but, rather, that after repair the resale value would be diminished because the car had been in an accident, “the diminution in resale value is not to be taken into account” … . Parkoff v Stavsky, 2013 NY slip Op 05737, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

You might also like
PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM ‘STATUTORY RAPE’ TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE WAS A TRADE FIXTURE WHICH COULD BE REMOVED BY THE TENANT OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED (SECOND DEPT).
Collapse of Rotten Floor First Revealed When Carpet Was Removed Was Not Foreseeable—Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—Defect Was Latent and Was Not Caused by Owner—Labor Law 200 and Common-Law Negligence Causes of Action Properly Dismissed
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HIS BOYKIN RIGHTS AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
FACT THAT DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR HAD BEEN ISSUED A PERMIT FOR DRILLING IN THE STREET DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR CREATED A DEFECT IN THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
GOVERNOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THE SPECIAL ELECTION FOR QUEENS BOROUGH PRESIDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment
TENANT WAS INJURED TRYING TO MOVE A HEAVY RADIATOR THAT HAD BEEN LEFT OUTSIDE HIS APARTMENT FOR MONTHS, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CLAIMING PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Questions of Fact Raised Whether Negligent Diversion of Water by Private Property... Snow Removal Contractor Owed Duty to Slip and Fall Plaintiff