Opinion
570684/03, 03-311/2.
Decided May 25, 2004.
Defendant appeals from an amended judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court, New York County, entered on or about February 25, 2003 after trial (Donna G. Recant, J.) in favor of plaintiff, and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $3,000.
Amended judgment entered on or about February 25, 2003 (Donna G. Recant, J.) affirmed, without costs.
PRESENT: HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P., HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
The commercial small claims award in plaintiff-landlord's favor achieved "substantial justice" consistent with substantive law principles (CCA 1807-A) and, indeed, the propriety of the trial court's merits determination is not now challenged by defendant-tenant on appeal. Contrary to defendant's lone "jurisdictional" argument, the lease agreement which defendant was shown to have violated — covering space used for dual residential/professional purposes — was not a "consumer transaction" within the meaning of the commercial small claims statute ( see CCA 1801-A[b]) and, thus, the absence of a pre-suit "demand letter" ( see CCA 1803-A[b]) was not fatal to the plaintiff's case.
A "consumer transaction," as defined in CCA 1801-A[b]), is a "transaction . . . wherein the money, property or services which is the subject of the transaction is primarily for personal, family or household purposes." While the statutory definition may be ambiguous, the defendant's unduly expansive construction of the term "consumer transaction" as including residential leases is inconsistent with the statute's legislative history, which reflects the salutary, but not unlimited goal of affording "reasonable consumer protections" to unwary "customer[s]" defending actions brought by "businesses" arising from contractual or fee disputes (Governor's Mem approving L 1990, ch 847, 1990 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 2751). Had the Legislature intended that an apartment lease qualify as a consumer transaction under the statute, it presumably would have included appropriate language to that effect, as is found, for example, in the "small print," consumer protection provisions of CPLR 4544, made applicable to printed contracts or agreements "involving a consumer transaction or a lease for space to be occupied for residential purposes". A statute should not be extended by construction beyond its express terms or the reasonable implications of its language ( see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, § 94; Drelich v. Kenlyn Homes, Inc., 86 AD2d 648).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.