Morley v Adelman
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 13, 2022
Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County
Chris Morley Claimant,
against
Jeremy Adelman, Defendant.
Index No. SC-000838-21/NY
Kim M. Parker, J.
This court held a bench trial of the instant civil court matter on October 20, 2022. The trial was held on the record at 111 Centre Street, New York, New York. Both parties appeared in-person.
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2021, claimant Chris Morley ("Claimant") commenced this small claims court action under Index No. SC-000838-21/NY against defendant Jeremy Adelman ("defendant") to recover damages from failure to pay for services rendered in the amount of $4,618.18. Both sides were self-represented. Claimant submitted into evidence text messages, email correspondence, notarized affidavit, among other items, collectively, marked as Claimant's Exhibit 1.
Defendant submitted into evidence text messages, marked as "Defendant's Exhibit A".
FINDINGS OF FACT
At trial, Claimant testified that his company, Bien Realty, helped Defendant locate a new tenant for his apartment. In 2020, when Defendant decided to break his lease early, he agreed he would pay half of his security deposit as a broker's fee if Claimant found a new tenant by the end of February. During this same time, Claimant notified Defendant of a new law which made it illegal for brokers to collect their fee from incoming tenants.
Claimant later notified Defendant that the law was temporarily halted and informed him that it was now optional to pay the fee. Claimant testified that Defendant never replied upon learning about this new information. However, after the work was completed and he located a tenant with a March 1 move-in date, Defendant stated that he was not going to pay Claimant. Claimant accepted a reduced commission fee from the incoming tenant because he relied on Defendant's agreement to pay him. He also arranged the sale of Defendant's curtains and [*2]refrigerator to the incoming tenant for $500.
Defendant acknowledged that he initially agreed to pay the commission when he believed that Claimant would not be receiving a commission from the incoming tenant due to the passing of the new law. However, Defendant later advised Claimant he would not be paying the commission. In addition, Claimant misinformed him that the law passed when in fact it did not. Defendant could not provide evidence of the verbal conversation. Defendant also testified that he preferred paying the remaining three month's rent of $28,800.00 than to pay Claimant's broker's fee.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Wide latitude is given to all litigants before the Small Claims Court and small claims' cases are informal and simplified procedures in which the court seeks to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law. See NYCCCA § 1804.
After a review of the testimony and documentary evidence, Claimant has proved beyond clear and convincing evidence that Defendant agreed to share half of his security deposit with Claimant if he found a new tenant by the end of February. Defendant found a new tenant with a March 1 move-in date. At Defendant's request, he also arranged for the sale of Defendant's curtains and refrigerator for $500.
Regarding Defendant's assertion that Claimant misinformed him regarding the law, the Statewide Housing Security & Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (the Acts) were signed into law on June 14, 2019. Some provisions went into effect immediately, however the provision barring brokers from collecting fees from new tenants went into effect in February 2020 during the same time Claimant was seeking a new tenant for Defendant's unit. Since that time, the Acts have undergone several amendments. Nevertheless, Defendant's assertion lacks merit.
Defendant stated that he verbally told Claimant he was not paying the brokers commission, however it is unsubstantiated because he failed to offer any documentary evidence that this conversation ever occurred. In addition, Claimant's March 6 text requesting to "send an invoice" contradicts Defendant's testimony that such a discussion occurred, and Claimant knew that Defendant was not paying a commission. Moreover, Claimant provided a notarized affidavit from Mr. Ryan Cheal, the former building manager, which states in part that "he witnessed Defendant promise the landlord he would pay Claimant, and the landlord would not agree to release the money until he agreed to". Furthermore, Claimant is entitled to the broker's fee because Defendant incurred benefits for the services rendered by Claimant and the interest of justice would be served.
As such, this Court finds in favor of Claimant.
VERDICT
Accordingly, regarding Index No.: SC-000838-21/NY it is the verdict of the Court that judgment is granted in favor of Claimant, and in the amount of $4,618.18 with interest from February 8, 2020, cost and disbursements; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in Claimant's favor accordingly.
This constitutes the decision, verdict, and order of the Court.
Dated: December 13, 2022
New York, New York
KIM M. PARKER
Judge of the Civil Court
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.
