Jamaica Seven, LLC v Eugene

Annotate this Case
[*1] Jamaica Seven, LLC v Eugene 2009 NY Slip Op 52219(U) [25 Misc 3d 134(A)] Decided on October 23, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 23, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2008-2149 Q C.

Jamaica Seven, LLC, Appellant,

against

Rodney Eugene, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Denis Butler, J.), entered September 20, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the sum of $1,269.07 on his counterclaim.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant commercial claims action to recover damages resulting from defendant's alleged breach of a lease. Defendant counterclaimed, seeking the return of his security deposit. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the sum of $1,269.07 on his counterclaim. A review of the record on appeal establishes that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for an adjournment of the trial. Further, since plaintiff refused to offer any proof in support of its cause of action, the Civil Court was correct in dismissing it. As defendant gave credible testimony in support of his counterclaim, the court properly awarded judgment to defendant thereon.

In view of the foregoing, substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804-A, 1807-A). Accordingly, the judgment of the Civil Court is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: October 23, 2009

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.