Guadagni v Chong

[*1] Guadagni v Chong 2003 NY Slip Op 51678(U) Decided on December 22, 2003 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 22, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:DOYLE, P.J., WINICK and SKELOS, JJ.
NO. 2003-208 S C

ROBERT GUADAGNI and LORRAINE ROMANO, Respondents,

against

ROBERTO CHONG and KAREN HINSCH, Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from a small claims judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County (P. Barton J.), entered on August 13, 2002, which awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $700 and dismissed defendants' counterclaim.

Judgment unanimously modified by striking the award in favor of plaintiffs and by dismissing plaintiffs' claim; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

This small claims action was commenced by plaintiffs, former tenants of defendants, who sought to recover, inter alia, the balance of their security deposit. Defendants counterclaimed to recover rents allegedly past due.

We are of the opinion that on August 22, 2001, plaintiffs offered to surrender the lease, which offer defendants ultimately accepted and, as a result, the lease between the parties was terminated, thereby releasing the tenants from the obligation to pay further rent after the month of September (see Deer Hills Hardware v Conlin Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 565 [2002]; Nicholas A. Cutaia, Inc. v Buyer's Bazaar, 224 AD2d 952 [1996]; see also 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant—Summary Proceedings § 26:35, at 311 [4th ed]). While defendants may have been entitled to use a portion of the retained security deposit to compensate them for damages to the premises for which, they alleged, plaintiffs were responsible, they offered no evidence to substantiate their claims. However, by cashing a check for $1,100, tendered by defendants as a "final settlement," plaintiffs were barred from bringing the instant action to recover the balance of their security deposit. The cashing of a check which clearly expresses that it is in full payment or full settlement of a disputed amount is generally considered to be an acceptance by the creditor, constituting an accord and satisfaction (see 19A NY Jur 2d, Compromise, Accord, and Release § 8), which precludes a party from asserting a claim. Accordingly, plaintiffs' claim should have been dismissed.
Decision Date: December 22, 2003