Armour v McDermott

[*1] Armour v McDermott 2009 NY Slip Op 52381(U) [25 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on November 19, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 19, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
2008-2186 N C.

Maria Therese Armour, Respondent,

against

Kara M. McDermott, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Fred J. Hirsh, J.), entered June 5, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against her former roommate. Both parties had signed a one-year lease for the apartment, but defendant had subsequently moved out and refused to pay her share of the rent for the last seven months of the lease term. Plaintiff paid the landlord the full monthly rent of $1,800 each month for the remainder of the lease term after defendant had moved out, and brought this action to
recover half of that amount. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found that defendant owed plaintiff $900 per month for seven months, and awarded plaintiff the sum of $5,000, the jurisdictional limit of the Small Claims Part of the court (see UDCA 1801). The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

Under the circumstances presented, the parties were joint obligors on the lease (see Beltrone v General Schuyler & Co., 229 AD2d 857, 858 [1996]; 23 NY Jur 2d, Contribution, Indemnity and Subrogation §§ 12, 18) and defendant failed to rebut the presumption that arises by virtue of the parties' status as tenants in common (see Marks v Macchiarola, 204 AD2d 221, 222-223 [1994]). Consequently, we find that the judgment enforcing plaintiff's right of contribution against defendant provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: November 19, 2009