6225 Broadway Prop. LP v Shulman

[*1] 6225 Broadway Prop. LP v Shulman 2016 NY Slip Op 51643(U) Decided on November 16, 2016 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 16, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Gonzalez, JJ.
570609/16

6225 Broadway Property LP, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Joel Shulman, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2016, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $294.76, and dismissing defendant's counterclaim.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2016, affirmed, without costs.

A judgment rendered in the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court will be sustained on appeal unless it is shown that "substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]). Applying that limited standard of review here, we find no basis to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court in awarding plaintiff-landlord a recovery for repair expenses which exceeded the amount of defendant-tenant's security deposit. Plaintiff produced competent proof that defendant caused damages to the leased apartment that went beyond ordinary wear and tear. Accordingly, defendant-tenant's counterclaim seeking recovery of his rent deposit was properly dismissed. Particularly in the context of small claims cases, the decision of the fact-finding court is entitled to deference where it rests in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 16, 2016