Opinion
2007-1818 W C.
Decided on January 9, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Arthur J. Doran, III, J.), entered July 5, 2006. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed defendant's counterclaim.
Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
Plaintiff, defendant's former landlord, commenced this small claims action to recover damages for breach of an agreement reached with defendant after defendant vacated the leased premises prior to the expiration of the lease. The agreement was to the effect that plaintiff would accept new tenants in mitigation of the amount defendant owed for the remaining months of her lease in return for defendant's express promise to pay the difference between the amount of rent set forth in her lease and the amount the new tenants were willing to pay. Defendant agreed to pay this difference for the entire term of the new tenants' lease, which extended a few months beyond defendant's lease. Defendant counterclaimed to recoup the portion of her rent payments which she attributed to "common charges," alleging that plaintiff had assured her that the services for which these charges were assessed would be provided, and that they were not provided. She also counterclaimed for the monies she had paid plaintiff pursuant to the surrender agreement. After a nonjury trial, the court dismissed plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim. Defendant appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed her counterclaim.
Upon a review of the record, we find that the trial court's dismissal of defendant's counterclaim provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126). The decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544).
This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court ( see Williams, 269 AD2d at 126).
Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, plaintiff, as landlord, was under no obligation to mitigate his damages upon defendant's abandonment of the premises in the middle of her lease period ( see Holy Props. v Cole Prods., 87 NY2d 130; Rios v Carrillo, 53 AD3d 111). Thus, defendant shows no grounds to recoup the payments she made pursuant to the valid and enforceable surrender agreement, which was based on valuable consideration. In addition, the court could credit plaintiff's testimony that defendant never complained to him about the alleged lack of services, and thus never gave him the opportunity to see that the services were provided. Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.