Couvertier v Miley

Annotate this Case
[*1] Couvertier v Miley 2014 NY Slip Op 51433(U) Decided on October 1, 2014 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 1, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570394/14

Shantel Couvertier, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

James Miley, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Gerald Lebovitz, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2013, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding her damages in the principal sum of $2,878 in the main action, and limited defendant's recovery on the counterclaim to the principal sum of $669.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Gerald Lebovitz, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2013, affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated by Gerald Lebovitz, J. at Civil Court.

Applying the narrow standard of review governing appeals in small claims actions (CCA 1807); see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), and giving due deference to the trial court's detailed factual findings, we sustain the court's resolution of the rent, habitability and property damage issues litigated below. There is no basis to disturb the trial court's express findings, which rest in large measure on the credibility of the witnesses, that there were "significant warranty of habitability issues" in the apartment premises of which defendant-landlord had due notice and that, with respect to plaintiff-tenant's property damage claims, there was a causal connection between the persistent water leaks complained of and the documented damages to plaintiff's household items. The amounts of the damage awards issued in connection with the parties' respective claims find support in the record and achieved "substantial justice" between the parties (CCA 1804, 1807).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 01, 2014

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.