New York diminished value law

New York does not have widely reported case law explicitly supporting diminished value compensation for fully repaired vehicles. However, its courts have consistently upheld the principle that an injured party should be made whole. In Franklin Corp. v. Prahler, the court emphasized that “under a general theory of damages, a plaintiff is entitled to be made whole.” This principle aligns with longstanding New York jurisprudence on tort damages (see Campagnola v. Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 42).

Franklin Corp. v. Prahler, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Filed: November 10, 2011
Precedential status: Persuasive
Citation: Not reported in official reporters

The court stated that when a vehicle has appreciated in value and is later damaged due to another’s negligence, the plaintiff should be entitled to recover for the resulting diminution in value—otherwise, they are not made whole. This supports the notion that diminished value may be compensable under general damage principles.

Rosenfield v. Choberka, 140 Misc. 2d 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988)
Decided: 1988 · Supreme Court of New York
Precedential status: Persuasive
Citation: 140 Misc. 2d 9, 14

In this case, the court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to recover both the cost of repairs and the diminished market value if repairs alone do not restore the vehicle’s worth. The court stated: “To hold otherwise would permit a tort-feasor to carelessly damage a new, or reasonably new car, and escape the full consequence of his act by tender of the cost of repair alone…”. This ruling reinforces that diminished value can be a valid component of damages in New York, even if not explicitly outlined in statute.