Opinion
2014-2716 W C
02-22-2016
Jacqueline L. Clark, Respondent, v. Eric Singletary, Appellant.
PRESENT: :
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Edward J. Gaffney, Jr., J.), entered October 2, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, defendant's former wife, commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 from defendant based on a jointly owed debt in the amount of $17,930.37, which represented rental arrears owed to their former landlord. In a prior Supreme Court matrimonial action, the parties had stipulated to be jointly liable for all of their rental arrears. After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000. On appeal, defendant contends that the City Court misinterpreted a decision of this court (O'Connell v Singletary, 31 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50439[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]), which, defendant claims, found that he was not liable to his former landlord for arrears. Therefore, defendant contends, the City Court erred in relying on the stipulation entered into in the Supreme Court action.
In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice. In determining defendant's prior appeal in a nonpayment summary proceeding (O'Connell v Singletary, 31 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50439[U]), this court did not consider or rule on defendant's contractual obligations under the Supreme Court stipulation of settlement, as the Supreme Court stipulation was not before this court on the prior appeal. Rather, in determining the prior appeal, this court found only that jurisdiction over defendant had not been obtained because defendant no longer resided at the premises at the time the nonpayment proceeding had been commenced (id.). Thus, as there is no merit to defendant's contention on appeal, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Iannacci, J.P., and Connolly, J., concur.
Tolbert, J., taking no part. Decision Date: February 22, 2016