Bram v Robottom

[*1] Bram v Robottom 2009 NY Slip Op 51388(U) [24 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on June 29, 2009 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 29, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and NICOLAI, JJ
2008-1636 S C.

David Bram CINDY BRAM, Appellants,

against

Deborah Robottom EDWARD ROBOTTOM, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan), entered July 10, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover their security deposit in the sum of $1,200 from defendants, their former landlords. Following the nonjury trial, the District Court found that plaintiffs had given defendants notice to terminate the month-to-month tenancy on February 27, 2008 and that they had moved out of the premises on March 1, 2008. The court awarded judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the action.

The record reveals that after expiration of the parties' written lease, plaintiffs occupied the premises as month-to-month tenants. Pursuant to Real Property Law § 232-b, a month-to-month tenancy outside the City of New York may be terminated by either party upon "notifying the other at least one month before the expiration of the term of [the] election to terminate." At trial, plaintiff David Bram admitted that he gave notice to defendant on February 27, 2008 that he was moving out of the premises on March 1, 2008. As plaintiffs failed to give the required one month's notice, they are not entitled to a refund of the security deposit. Consequently, the judgment properly provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Nicolai, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: June 29, 2009