Opinion
2006-2167 N C.
Decided December 13, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), entered June 23, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the net sum of $750.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover, inter alia, a security deposit of $1,250 that she gave to defendant, her former landlord. Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking $2,518.44 for breach of the lease and unpaid utility bills. After hearing testimony from both parties, the court below found in favor of plaintiff on her claim for the security deposit and found in favor of defendant on the counterclaim in the sum of $500, resulting in a net judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $750. Defendant appeals from the judgment.
The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126), especially where the court had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses ( see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511).
A review of the record indicates that plaintiff made out a prima facie case with respect to the security deposit. With respect to defendant's counterclaim, we find no basis to conclude that the award of $500 was inadequate. Although defendant asserted that plaintiff breached the lease provision limiting the occupancy of the premises to one person, this lease provision is unenforceable as against public policy ( see Real Property Law § 235-f). In any event, at trial, defendant did not prove, or even testify about, her allegation that plaintiff breached the lease provision and she did not prove damages arising from any such breach. In addition, the court could properly find that defendant did not support her contention that plaintiff had removed defendant's furnishings without her consent. Under the circumstances, it is our view that substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.