Crystal Dental Prosthetics, Inc. v. Dagostino , 2012 Ohio 3823 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Crystal Dental Prosthetics, Inc. v. Dagostino, 
    2012-Ohio-3823
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 98200
    CRYSTAL DENTAL PROSTHETICS, INC.
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
    vs.
    MICHAEL DAGOSTINO DDS
    DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
    JUDGMENT:
    AFFIRMED
    Civil Appeal from the
    Parma Municipal Court
    Case No. 11CVI-03389
    BEFORE: Rocco, J., Jones, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 23, 2012
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    Fadi G. Boumitri
    1797 Pearl Road
    Brunswick, Ohio 44212
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
    Bradley P. Toman
    Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich Co., LPA
    24755 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 200
    Cleveland, Ohio 44122
    KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
    {¶1} In this appeal assigned to the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R.11.1 and
    Loc.App.R. 11.1, plaintiff-appellant Crystal Dental Prosthetics, Inc. (“CDP”) appeals
    from the order of the Parma Municipal Court that adopted the magistrate’s decision to
    award    $1,311.84    to     defendant-appellee   Michael   Dagostino,   D.D.S.     in   this
    breach-of-contract action.
    {¶2} The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to allow this court to render a brief
    and conclusory opinion. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 
    11 Ohio App.3d 158
    , 
    463 N.E.2d 655
     (1st Dist.1983); App.R. 11.1(E).
    {¶3} CDP presents seven assignments of error. In essence, CDP asserts that the
    magistrate misapplied the law to the facts presented at the hearing, therefore, the
    municipal court acted improperly in adopting the magistrate’s decision.           This court
    disagrees. Consequently, CDP’s assignments of error are overruled, and the municipal
    court’s order is affirmed.
    {¶4} CDP filed a complaint in the municipal court against Dagostino for breach of
    contract and unjust enrichment, claiming CDP had provided goods to Dagostino but he
    had failed to pay $1,688.16 he owed to CDP on his account. CDP attached no statement
    of the account to its complaint.
    {¶5} Dagostino filed an answer and a counterclaim, alleging that the goods CDP
    provided were substandard and unusable, and that he had been required to incur
    additional costs to replace them. Dagostino requested judgment on his counterclaim in
    the amount of $3,000.00.
    {¶6} The matter proceeded to trial before a magistrate.       After hearing the
    testimony and considering the evidence, the magistrate found that Dagostino had accepted
    seven dental pieces from CDP but refused to pay for them, so CDP deserved judgment on
    its complaint.
    {¶7} The magistrate further determined, however, that CDP supplied five dental
    crowns to Dagostino for which he submitted payment to CDP that were substandard.
    Because Dagostino had communicated his dissatisfaction to CDP but problems persisted,
    and because Dagostino had been required to replace the items and to incur additional
    labor, he deserved judgment on his counterclaim. Judgment was rendered for Dagostino
    in the amount of the difference, viz., $1,311.84.
    {¶8} The municipal court subsequently overruled CDP’s objections to the
    magistrate’s decision and issued an order adopting it. CDP appeals from that order with
    seven assignments of error.
    {¶9} CDP argues in its first assignment of error that, in granting Dagostino
    judgment on his counterclaim, the magistrate failed to impose a duty on Dagostino to
    mitigate his damages. This argument is rejected.
    {¶10} Dagostino presented evidence to prove that, in supplying the goods at issue,
    CDP breached R.C. 1302.27 and 1302.28, the implied warranties of merchantability and
    fitness. Dagostino further provided evidence that he notified CDP of the problems he
    was experiencing with the dental pieces CDP supplied, but the problems remained.
    Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 1302.65(B) and (D), Dagostino was not barred from seeking
    the remedy provided by R.C. 1302.88. Bldrs. Kitchens of Stark Cty., Inc. v. Sibel, 
    189 Ohio App.3d 41
    , 
    2010-Ohio-890
    , 
    937 N.E.2d 570
     (1st Dist.), ¶ 36-37; AFG, Inc. v.
    Great Lakes Heat Treating Co., 
    51 Ohio St.3d 177
    , 179–180, 
    555 N.E.2d 634
     (1990).
    {¶11} In contravention of App.R. 16(A)(7), CDP argues its second and third
    assignments of error together.    Consequently, this court declines to address them.
    Patino v. Faust, 8th Dist. No. 90475, 
    2008-Ohio-6280
    , ¶ 7; App.R. 12(A)(2).
    {¶12} Similarly, CDP’s fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are
    unsupported by citations to authority as required by App.R. 16(A)(7). Consequently, this
    court also declines to address them. App.R. 12(A)(1)(b) and (A)(2).
    {¶13} In its seventh assignment of error, CDP argues that, in granting Dagostino
    judgment on his counterclaim, the magistrate failed to apply the “customs and industry
    standards” that applied to the parties. CDP asserts the industry required Dagostino to
    absorb the cost of the work involved in replacing and fitting “bad” dental pieces for his
    patients. The evidence presented at the hearing, however, does not support such an
    assertion. See, e.g., Parsell v. Bielser, 3d Dist. No. 7-01-06, 
    2001-Ohio-2176
    ; Bldrs.
    Kitchens of Stark Cty., Inc., 
    189 Ohio App.3d 41
    , 
    2010-Ohio-890
    , 
    937 N.E.2d 570
     (2d
    Dist.).
    {¶14} Accordingly, CDP’s seventh assignment of error is overruled.
    {¶15} The municipal court’s order is affirmed.
    It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
    The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into
    execution.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
    the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    _________________________________
    KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
    LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
    SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98200

Citation Numbers: 2012 Ohio 3823

Judges: Rocco

Filed Date: 8/23/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014