Opinion
2007-1752 D C.
Decided on November 19, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (Katherine A. Moloney, J.), entered June 27, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendants the principal sum of $2,700 on their counterclaim.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
This small claims action was commenced by plaintiff, defendants' former landlord, seeking to recover damages in the sum of $3,552, representing unpaid rents allegedly due from defendants, who vacated the premises prior to the expiration of their residential lease. Defendants counterclaimed for $2,952, representing alleged rent overpayments, a security deposit, and interest thereon.
The evidence at trial showed that defendants had been plaintiff's tenants for seven years and that the parties had annually entered into one-year leases. Most recently, defendants had signed a one-year lease for a term which commenced on July 1, 2005 and ended on June 30, 2006. The monthly rent was $900, and tenants had paid a security deposit of $900. After defendant Kevin Dyer gave plaintiff notice of defendants' intention to vacate the premises prior to the expiration of the term, the parties entered into a relet agreement, in September of 2005, which, inter alia, required plaintiff to advertise and show the unit, and required defendants to continue to pay rent for the remainder of the term unless the apartment was relet for a one-year period at a monthly rent of $975, in which case defendants would pay rent until the new tenant's move-in date. Defendants moved out on September 20, 2005 and continued to pay the monthly rent through December 2005. Plaintiff testified that he was unable to relet the apartment immediately after it was vacated because of defendants' damage to the apartment, which required months of repairs. He made repairs and replaced various appliances in the apartment, and did not advertise the unit until January of 2006. A new tenant signed a lease on March 15, 2006 and moved in on April 15, 2006. Plaintiff sought to recover from defendants unpaid rent for the months of January through March and the first half of April 2006, plus a finance charge for late payment of rent. Defendants, in their counterclaim, sought to recover the rents they had paid plaintiff for November and December of 2005, their security deposit and interest thereon.
The trial court dismissed plaintiff's claim, finding that plaintiff had breached the relet agreement by failing to advertise and show the unit, choosing instead to renovate the apartment while defendants continued to pay rent. The trial court also found that since plaintiff did not have any photographs or receipts for his repairs, he had failed to establish that the damage to the apartment allegedly done by defendants was nothing more than normal wear and tear. Thus, the court found, defendants were entitled to a return of their security deposit. Judgment was entered dismissing plaintiff's cause of action and awarding defendant the principal sum of $2,700, representing two months' rent plus the amount of the security deposit. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.
Our review on an appeal of a small claims judgment is limited to determining whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807; see Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707; see also Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584). In addition, the deference which an appellate court normally accords to the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review and the often attenuated record available on appeal ( see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125). Even if the appellate court differs with the small claims court on an arguable point of fact or law, the appellate court may not reverse, absent a showing that there is no support in the record for the trial court's conclusions or that they are otherwise so clearly erroneous as to deny substantial justice ( see Payne v Biglin , 2 Misc 3d 127 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51694[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2003]; Dourado v Jordan, 2002 NY Slip Op 40394[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2002]).
Although "a residential landlord is under no duty to mitigate damages where the terms of the lease do not indicate otherwise" ( Rios v Carrillo , 53 AD3d 111 , 114), once plaintiff affirmatively undertook to relet the apartment on defendants' account, he was obligated to comply with the agreement and to do so in a timely fashion. The relet agreement in the instant case required plaintiff to advertise and show the unit, and, as the court below noted and the testimony indicates, plaintiff failed to do so, choosing instead to make repairs and to replace certain items in the unit. Whether plaintiff's conduct was reasonably necessary to relet was a question of fact for the trial court ( see 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 26:25, at 304-305 [4th ed]), which decided the issue against plaintiff, and plaintiff has shown no sufficient reason to disturb the trial court's determination.
In addition, the court could have found that when plaintiff chose to renovate the apartment rather than relet it, he was no longer acting under the authority conferred upon him by tenants under the relet agreement, but instead was acting on his own account. A landlord's conduct may indicate his intent to terminate the lease and use the property for his own benefit, thereby releasing a tenant from further liability for rent ( see Deer Hills Hardware v Conlin Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 565).
Moreover, although plaintiff might have been entitled to retain defendants' security deposit to compensate him for damage to the premises for which, he alleged, defendants were responsible, he failed to offer sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of damage ( see UCCA 1804).
In view of the foregoing, we find that the court below rendered substantial justice to the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807), and we affirm the judgment.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.