Strenio v. Grunstein

Full title: Elizabeth Strenio, Respondent, July 7, 2015 v. Jeffrey Grunstein…

Court: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Jul 7, 2015

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51047 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)

Opinion

2013-2021 RO C

07-07-2015

Elizabeth Strenio, Respondent, July 7, 2015 v. Jeffrey Grunstein, Appellant.

TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ.

PRESENT: :

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Spring Valley, Rockland County (Susan M. Smith, J.), entered June 20, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,695.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, defendant's former tenant, commenced this small claims action to recover a $2,695 security deposit which defendant had failed to return to plaintiff. After a nonjury trial, at which defendant claimed that plaintiff owed late fees and had caused damage to the premises, the Justice Court found in favor of plaintiff and awarded her the principal sum of $2,695.

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 [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).

In this case, the record supports the Justice Court's determinations that defendant did not prove his claims that plaintiff owed late fees or had caused damage to the premises beyond ordinary wear and tear. It is noted that, in any event, defendant failed to demonstrate the reasonable value and necessity of any alleged repairs to the premises (see UJCA 1804; Tavernese v Comer, 38 Misc 3d 128[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52386[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). Defendant also failed to substantiate his remaining claims of error on appeal. In view of the foregoing, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice (see UJCA 1804, 1807).Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Tolbert, J.P., Garguilo and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 07, 2015