Opinion
No. 2023-801 K C
09-27-2024
Debra Edmundson, Respondent, v. Gateway Elton Owner 1, Appellant.
Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP (Sean A. Zvi of counsel), for appellant. Debra Edmundson, respondent pro se.
Unpublished Opinion
Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP (Sean A. Zvi of counsel), for appellant.
Debra Edmundson, respondent pro se.
PRESENT: CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, MARINA CORA MUNDY, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), entered December 15, 2022. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,011.20.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against her landlord seeking, insofar as is relevant here, to recover, based upon a breach of the warranty of habitability (see Real Property Law § 235-b), all the rent she paid from February through September 2020. At a nonjury trial, she testified about two incidents, one in February 2020 and one in September 2020, where different individuals entered her apartment, without permission or warning, using keys that she had not given them. She testified that she immediately reported the first incident to defendant, but that her locks were not changed until after the second incident. After trial, the Civil Court (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.) found that plaintiff was entitled to a 30 percent abatement of her monthly rent for the eight-month period during which the locks of her apartment were compromised. A judgment was entered on December 15, 2022 awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,011.20.
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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [2000]).
Defendant's first argument on appeal, that plaintiff is not entitled to damages, is without merit. The warranty of habitability protects "against conditions that materially affect the health and safety of tenants or deficiencies that 'in the eyes of a reasonable person... deprive the tenant of those essential functions which a residence is expected to provide' ([ Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 N.Y.2d 316, 327, 328 (1979)] [emphasis supplied])" (Solow v Wellner, 86 N.Y.2d 582, 588 [1995]). Here, a reasonable person would expect that the lock on their door would keep all unauthorized individuals out of their apartment (see Berg v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 203 A.D.3d 484 [2022] [lack of building security can be the basis for a determination that there has been a breach of the warranty of habitability]; Jobe v Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC,198 A.D.3d 440 [2021] [same]). Plaintiff demonstrated that she alerted defendant to the problem after the first incident in February and that her locks were not changed until September. Defendant has not demonstrated that a 30 percent abatement of plaintiff's rent during that time was not warranted.
Contrary to defendant's other appellate argument, the notice of claim complied with the applicable statute, CCA 1803 (a), which provides that small claims shall be commenced "without the service of any pleading other than a statement of his cause of action by the claimant or someone in his behalf to the clerk, who shall reduce the same to a concise, written form and record it in a docket kept especially for such purpose."
Under the circumstances, the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
BUGGS, J.P., TOUSSAINT and MUNDY, JJ., concur.