Opinion
No. SC 3392–11.
2012-03-6
Lisa Monet LAMBERT and Vitelio Barrios, Plaintiff, v. Antonia RAMIREZ, Defendant.
Andres Jose Bermudez Hallstrom, Esq., Mamaroneck, for Defendant. General Delivery, New Rochelle, for Plaintiff.
Andres Jose Bermudez Hallstrom, Esq., Mamaroneck, for Defendant. General Delivery, New Rochelle, for Plaintiff.
ADAM SEIDEN, J.
Both parties appeared in Court in this small claims proceeding on January 27, 2012. The plaintiffs, former tenants at premises owned by the defendant, seek to recover damages of $5,000.00 based upon defendant's alleged breach of the rental agreement, failure to provide heat during the tenancy, building code violations, overpayment of monies and retaliatory eviction. The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that: 1) the Court does not have jurisdiction over the action; 2) the Court is an improper venue; 3) the alleged claims have been adjudicated and/or waived by the plaintiffs; 4) dismissing certain causes of action based upon plaintiff's failure to statute a cause or action or as being moot. Plaintiffs submitted opposition to the motion.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that pursuant to U.C.C.A. § 1801 it has jurisdiction over any cause of action for money only not in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs as long as the defendant either resides, or has an office for the transaction of business or a regular employment, within the county. As such, the Court has jurisdiction over the instant matter. For the same reason venue is correctly placed.
The parties in this action were involved in a nonpayment proceeding in the New Rochelle City Court in which a trial was held and a final decision rendered. In a Decision and Order dated October 18, 2011 by Judge Susan I. Kettner the defendant was awarded a judgment of possession in the amount of $3,710.00 for use and occupancy, together with legal fees and costs of $210.00. A warrant of eviction was also granted. The tenants refused to accept service of the 30 Day Notice to Terminate and failed to file an answer to the Notice of Petition, yet they appeared in court and provided testimony at the non-jury trial. At the trial, the plaintiffs herein contended that the defendant-landlord's action was a retaliatory eviction, that the defendant had various building violations, including no heat for a year, and that there were various oral agreements made regarding offsets of the agreed upon monthly rent due. The judgment and warrant of eviction were issued after the Court had heard all the testimony from both parties and found that the defendant-landlord had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiffs-tenants failed to pay rent and/or use and occupancy. The plaintiffs are now attempting to recover damages for the same claims that they asserted in the prior action.
The threshold issue to be determined in this case is whether the plaintiff may be permitted to litigate the issue of his former landlord's repairs to his apartment after a Court already issued a judgment against him and a warrant of eviction from that apartment.
Under the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata), a final judgment on the merits bars a subsequent action between the parties involving the same claim or transaction; it bars the re-litigation of causes of action that might have been litigated, as well as those that actually were litigated. In contrast, under the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) a party is precluded from re-litigating an issue if it can be shown that the issue is identical to one that was actually and necessarily decided in a prior action, essential to the prior determination and potentially decisive of the present action. Allied Chemical Co. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 72 N.Y.2d 271 (1988); Siegel, New York Practice, 2nd ed. Section 443. Here, there is an identity of issues between the same parties determined by a prior judgment in the nonpayment proceeding. The issues of whether the defendant's eviction was retaliatory in nature, whether there were building violations, including no-heat in the apartment and whether there were offsets to the rental amount due that resulted in alleged overpayment and whether proper repairs were made to the apartment were raised and litigated in the prior action. This court will not now permit the plaintiff herein to circumvent the previous decision and order of the New Rochelle City Court.
Therefore, this small claims action must be dismissed based upon the principles of res judicata. See Colebrook–Reed v. Zalensky, 8 Misc.3d 131A (2nd Dept.2005). As such, defendant's remaining contentions need not be addressed.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.