Hunter v Hogans

[*1] Hunter v Hogans 2007 NY Slip Op 50996(U) [15 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on May 14, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 14, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2006-1045 K C.

Jaran Hunter, Plaintiff-Defendant-Respondent,

against

Jimmy Hogans, Defendant-Plaintiff-Appellant, -and- JUDY HAMRICK, Defendant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered January 30, 2006. The judgment, in three consolidated actions, after a nonjury trial, awarded Jaran Hunter the principal sum of $5,000 as against Jimmy Hogans and Judy Hamrick, and dismissed Hogans' and Hamrick's claims.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In these three consolidated small claims actions, landlord Jaran Hunter sought to
recover, inter alia, unpaid rent, the costs of cleaning the subject apartment after defendants' departure, repairing damage, and replacing fixtures. Hogans and Hamrick interposed counterclaims. Hogans subsequently filed a small claims action alleging Hunter's failure to refund monies and for property damage. The court awarded Hunter, as against Hogans and Hamrick, the sum of $5,000 and dismissed Hogans' and Hamrick's claims. Hogans appeals and we affirm.

A small claims judgment must be affirmed if the record supports the conclusion that the [*2]determination afforded the parties substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). "[T]he decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence" (Levine v Cunningham, 5 Misc 3d 128[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51248[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists], citing Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]; see also McSpedon v Revzim, 5 Misc 3d 129[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51283[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] [the deference normally accorded the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in a small claims action]).

There was no dispute that Hogans and Hamrick occupied Hunter's apartment building as month-to-month tenants during a period when, apparently, the building's ownership transferred from their prior landlord, with whom they had no lease, to Hunter. Upon the record presented, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice (CCA 1807). We note that Hogans and Hamrick admitted they paid no rent during the final six months of their occupancy. Moreover, they failed to establish that the premises were not properly registered as a multiple dwelling when the rent was due. With respect to such claims, Hogans merely takes issue with the court's credibility findings, which we find no reason to disturb, and invokes proof that is not part of the record and which, accordingly, we may not consider (Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 14, 2007