Chin Wai Chan v 77 Ave. C Ltd. Partnership

[*1] Chin Wai Chan v 77 Ave. C Ltd. Partnership 2010 NY Slip Op 50940(U) [27 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on May 26, 2010 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 26, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570212/10.

Chin Wai Chan, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

77 Avenue C Limited Partnership, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2009, after trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the main claims and awarding defendant damages in the principal sum of $5,000 on its counterclaim.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2009, affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that the trial court applied the appropriate rules and principles of substantive law and accomplished "substantial justice" in dismissing plaintiff-tenant's claim for a refund of his security deposit and awarding defendant-landlord judgment on its counterclaim (see CCA 1804, 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]). The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court's findings that plaintiff failed to vacate the apartment premises or surrender the keys in accordance with the unambiguous terms of the stipulation settling the prior landlord-tenant proceeding, and that plaintiff owed use and occupancy and attorneys' fees pursuant to the stipulation. The record discloses no evidentiary error, and clearly none warranting reversal under the narrow review standard here applicable (see CCA 1807; see generally Ellis v Collegetown Plaza, LLC, 301 AD2d 758, 759 [2003]).

Defendant's counterclaim was properly filed and heard by the court (see CCA 1803[c]). We have considered and rejected plaintiff's remaining contentions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 26, 2010