Reim v. Barotz

Full title: Jordana REIM, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Norman BAROTZ, Defendant–Appellant.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 23, 2016

41 N.Y.S.3d 452 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)

Opinion

No. 16–195.

05-23-2016

Jordana REIM, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Norman BAROTZ, Defendant–Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2013, affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that the trial court applied the appropriate rules and principles of substantive law and accomplished “substantial justice” in awarding judgment in plaintiff's favor on her claim for refund of a security deposit and dismissing defendant's counterclaim (CCA 1804, 1807 ; see Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 898 [2000] ). A fair interpretation of the evidence, including the parties' photographs, supports the trial court's express finding that plaintiff “left the apartment in as-good or better condition than when she took possession” and that there was “no basis for a reduction from the security deposit for the other charges sought to be imposed.”

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur.