Opinion
2008-1573 Q C.
Decided October 19, 2009.
Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Lee A. Mayerson, J.), dated March 18, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered August 5, 2008 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,250.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ.
Plaintiff subleased an apartment from defendant Ming Zhu Hua for the period from December 2001 through June 2003 pursuant to an agreement facilitated by defendant Richard Xu, Ming Zhu Hua's husband. Subsequently, plaintiff entered into a lease directly with the landlord. At the nonjury trial held in this action, plaintiff alleged that she had been overcharged by defendants because she had been charged more for rent than the amount being collected from defendant Ming Zhu Hua by the landlord. She also asserted that defendants owe her the rent that she paid directly to the landlord for July, August, September and October 2003, and that she is entitled to the return of a security deposit in the sum of $1,950. She asserted that she had been unable to work as a result of actions allegedly taken by defendants and did not have an income. She sought compensation in the sum of $3,000. Finally, she sought reimbursement for various expenses related to the litigation, including transportation and copying.
The Civil Court rejected plaintiff's claim for the recovery of the July-October 2003 rent, finding that plaintiff's direct lease with the landlord commenced on July 1, 2003, "at which time plaintiff's rent obligations were due and owing directly to the landlord." The court further found that plaintiff had failed to prove the rent-regulated status of the subject apartment and thus had failed to establish a cause of action for rent overcharge. Regarding plaintiff's security deposit, the court found that plaintiff was entitled to recover $1,250. The court also stated that plaintiff failed to submit any documents in support of her cause of action for harassment. A judgment was entered awarding plaintiff the sum of $1,250. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the award is inadequate. We affirm the judgment.
The Civil Court's determination that there was a lease agreement in place between plaintiff and the landlord beginning July 1, 2003 is supported by the record. Moreover, it is undisputed that plaintiff lived in the subject apartment during that period and that she did not pay rent for that period to defendants. Therefore, plaintiff has not demonstrated her entitlement to recover from defendants the rent paid to the landlord for that time period.
Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff's contention on appeal that she submitted evidence at trial that the apartment is rent stabilized, there is no such evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Civil Court properly found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate her entitlement to recover for rent overcharges ( see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516 [a] [2]).
The Civil Court's finding that plaintiff's security deposit was $1,250, and not $1,950 as alleged by plaintiff, was a credibility determination. The determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511). 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). As the record supports the Civil Court's conclusions, we find no reason to disturb the court's determination with respect to the amount of the security deposit.
In addition, plaintiff failed to offer any proof of her allegation that she was unable to work and therefore lost income as a result of actions allegedly taken by defendants. To the extent plaintiff sought reimbursement for expenses related to the litigation, such as legal advice, copying, and service of papers, such expenses are not recoverable ( see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491). In any event, plaintiff did not offer any documentary evidence in support of her claim seeking reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses.
Plaintiff's remaining contentions are similarly without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.