## Facts

- Jean Bierman owned and lived in a small house at 149 Rivington Street in Manhattan.
- Around 6:30 a.m. on February 11, 1968, water suddenly entered her basement and caused property damage, including to the boiler and basement surfaces.
- The flooding resulted from a rupture in a water main located near her premises.
- Consolidated Edison maintained underground facilities in the street and had previously performed work in the area.
- Bierman sued the City of New York and Consolidated Edison in the Civil Court’s Small Claims Part, seeking $300 in damages.
- Due to calendar congestion, the case was transferred from the Small Claims Part to a regular trial part and tried to the court.
- At trial, the damage and the occurrence of a water-main break were not disputed, but the evidence did not clearly establish negligence by either defendant under ordinary tort standards.

## Issues

1. Whether Bierman could recover for damage caused by a ruptured water main without proving negligence (or another traditional tort theory) against the City or Consolidated Edison.
2. Whether, in a small claims matter (including one transferred to a regular part for trial), the court may relax the usual proof and procedural demands to accomplish the statutory goal of “substantial justice.”

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Bierman and awarded the $300 sought.
- The court imposed liability on both the City of New York and Consolidated Edison.
- The court concluded that, in the small claims context, it could grant relief even though the trial record did not establish negligence in the conventional manner.

## Legal Principles

- Small claims proceedings are designed to deliver “substantial justice” through informal procedure and flexible evidentiary handling.
- In small claims matters, a court may avoid rigid application of technical proof requirements when strict insistence would effectively bar recovery for a modest, clearly established loss.
- The “substantial justice” mandate permits outcomes consistent with substantive law while reducing procedural and evidentiary burdens that would defeat the remedial purpose of small claims practice.

## Conclusion

The court awarded a modest property-damage recovery for flooding from a ruptured water main and held that the small claims mandate to do substantial justice allowed judgment against the municipal and utility defendants despite the plaintiff’s inability to prove negligence with the level of detail typically required in ordinary tort litigation.


Bierman v. City of New York, 60 Misc. 2d 497, 302 N.Y.S.2d 696 (Civ. Ct. N.Y.C. 1969)