Finn v Schwartz

Annotate this Case
[*1] Finn v Schwartz 2004 NY Slip Op 50688(U) Decided on June 22, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 22, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:ARONIN, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
NO. 2003-1410 RI C

THOMAS FINN, Respondent,

against

RONNIE SCHWARTZ & TEDDY SCHWARTZ, Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the Civil Court, Richmond County (B. Panepinto, J.), entered March 11, 2003, in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,054.38.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action for the return of his security deposit and for wrongful eviction. Plaintiff testified that he was never notified by defendants of their intent to terminate his tenancy and, on December 1, 2002, he was physically removed from his apartment by defendants and was told that if he returned to the apartment he would be harmed. Defendant Teddy Schwartz testified that in late November 2002, he informed plaintiff of his intention to terminate his tenancy and on December 9, 2002, plaintiff terminated the tenancy by voluntarily moving out of the subject apartment. Thus, an issue of credibility was presented and said issue was properly decided by the lower court in favor of plaintiff and should not be disturbed on appeal since said determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Jones v Hart, 233 AD2d 297 [1996]; DiSalvo v Ordway, 208 AD2d 298 [1994]).

Furthermore, while defendants argue that they are entitled to retain plaintiff's security deposit due to the fact that plaintiff damaged the subject apartment, defendants failed to establish the cost to repair the damages which did not result from ordinary wear and tear. Accordingly, we find no basis upon which to disturb the judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Decision Date: June 22, 2004

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.