Opinion
2013-839 S C
10-26-2015
PRESENT: :
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton, Suffolk County (Andrea H. Schiavoni, J.), entered January 4, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,675 and dismissed the counterclaim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant, his former landlord, to recover the principal sum of $3,000, representing his $2,200 security deposit plus reimbursement for various expenses he had incurred. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the principal sum of $3,000 for repairs she had to make after plaintiff moved out. Following a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $2,675, which included the $2,200 security deposit and $475 in cleaning expenses that plaintiff had incurred, and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.
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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).
Generally, a security deposit remains the property of the tenant (see General Obligations Law § 7-103 [1]) and has to be returned at the conclusion of the tenancy (see Cruz v Diamond, 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50187[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]) absent, for example, proof that the tenant caused damage beyond that attributable to ordinary wear and tear (see generally Finnerty v Freeman, 176 Misc 2d 220, 222 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1998]). As the record failed to support defendant's claim that plaintiff caused damage beyond normal wear and tear, we find that the court's determination awarding plaintiff his $2,200 security deposit and dismissing defendant's counterclaim should not be disturbed (see UJCA 1804, 1807).
Moreover, insofar as the evidence showed that the house had not been professionally cleaned prior to plaintiff moving in, as required by the lease, and that plaintiff had hired a service to professionally clean the house, plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of the sum of $475 which plaintiff had paid to have the house cleaned.
Accordingly, as the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see UJCA 1804, 1807), it is affirmed.
Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 26, 2015