Bronxville Props., Inc. v Luyo

[*1] Bronxville Props., Inc. v Luyo 2012 NY Slip Op 52034(U) Decided on October 9, 2012 Just Ct, Vil. Of Tuckahoe, Westchester County Fuller, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 9, 2012
Just Ct, Vil. of Tuckahoe, Westchester County

Bronxville Properties, Inc., Petitioner,

against

Mary Isabel Luyo, Respondent.



V24-116A-12

David Otis Fuller Jr., J.

The landlord , Bronxville Properties, Inc., has sued the tenant, Mary Isabel Luyo, for $1,900,consisting of $1,400 (the difference between the cost of work on the apartment of $2,750, and a $1,350 security deposit) plus $500 in attorney's fees. After the landlord was asked by the court to itemize the claim , the landlord reduced the figure to $2,067.68.

The tenant had lived in the apartment at 111 Kensington Road for 13 months pursuant to a two- year lease, dated March 2, 2011, before she decided to move to the Bronxville School District. By agreement with the landlord, she found a new tenant to occupy the apartment for the remainder of the term, starting April 15, 2012. She vacated the apartment on April 1, 2012, but paid rent through April 15, 2012.

The landlord is not seeking relief for tenant's early vacating of the apartment, but makes the following seven-part claim for reimbursement for work done on the apartment after her departure: 1. Removing paint from 12 outlets that were assertedly not working $184.24 2. Repainting the apartment 839.16 3. Removing glue from the window 30.00 4. Replacing non-functioning hardware on a door 179.78 5. Replacing a greasy stove hood 219.99 6-7. Replacing a sink and formica adjacent to the sink due to a gap between the sink and the formica, allegedly resulting in rust. 270.69 (sink) 343.82 (formica) [*2]Total:$2,067.68

When apprised of the landlord's claim, the tenant offered it the $1,350 security deposit

for full satisfaction of all obligations. The landlord accepted the tender of the security deposit,

but not in full satisfaction, hence this proceeding.

After a bench trial with the landlord's principal, its contractor and the tenant testifying, and the introduction of seven exhibits into evidence, the court finds that the petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the outlets had been painted over by the tenant or that the tenant was obligated to repaint the apartment for the new tenant.

The putting of tape on a window for insulation, allegedly leaving a residue of glue, and the presence of grease on the stove hood are not inconsistent with normal use. See Taylor v. Campbell, 123 A.D. 698, 699 (2d Dept. 1908).

The non-functioning hardware on the door is the responsibility of the landlord.

The gap between the sink and formica, allegedly resulting in rust, was not shown to have been caused by a positive act of the tenant. See Taylor v. Campbell, supra.

Accordingly, the petitioner's claim is dismissed, and it is ordered to return the $1,350 security deposit to the respondent with interest. Attorney's fees and costs are denied.

Dated: Oct 9, 2012

_____________________________

David Otis Fuller, Jr.

Village Justice