From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Velcher v. 3100 Brighton 2ND St., LLC

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Mar 5, 2021
70 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Term 2021)

Opinion

2020-19 K C

03-05-2021

Ilia VELCHER, Appellant, v. 3100 BRIGHTON 2ND ST., LLC, Respondent.

Ilia Velcher, appellant pro se. 3100 Brighton 2nd St., LLC, respondent pro se (no brief filed).


Ilia Velcher, appellant pro se.

3100 Brighton 2nd St., LLC, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

PRESENT: MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a security deposit in the amount of $1,850. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that he had initially paid $1,675 for the security deposit, and that when he renewed his lease, he paid an unspecified additional amount for both the security deposit and monthly rent. Although the court asked plaintiff to submit documentary proof of the fact and the amount of the security deposit allegedly tendered, plaintiff offered no documents into evidence. Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

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" ( CCA 1807 ; see CCA 1804 ; Ross v Friedman , 269 AD2d 584 [2000] ; Williams v Roper , 269 AD2d 125, 126 [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 ).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law ( see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Velcher v. 3100 Brighton 2ND St., LLC

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Mar 5, 2021
70 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Term 2021)
Case details for

Velcher v. 3100 Brighton 2ND St., LLC

Case Details

Full title:Ilia Velcher, Appellant, v. 3100 Brighton 2nd St., LLC, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Mar 5, 2021

Citations

70 Misc. 3d 144 (N.Y. App. Term 2021)
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 50181
140 N.Y.S.3d 348