Botocska v Garanvolgyi

Annotate this Case
[*1] Botocska v Garanvolgyi 2007 NY Slip Op 51489(U) [16 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on July 12, 2007 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 12, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : McCABE, J.P., TANENBAUM and LIPPMAN, JJ
2006-997 S C.

Balazs Botocska, Appellant,

against

Alex Garanvolgyi and Juait Garanvolgyi, Respondents.

Appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered December 13, 2005. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed landlord's petition and, without prejudice, tenants' counterclaim in a nonpayment summary proceeding.


Final judgment reversed without costs, petition and counterclaim reinstated, and new trial ordered before a different judge.

In this nonpayment proceeding, landlord seeks to recover rent and added rent in the form of real estate taxes allegedly due, in the total sum of $17,200. Tenants asserted a defense of payment and counterclaimed for the return of excess rents paid. At trial, tenants offered evidence in the form of rent receipts and a receipt for a disputed cash payment to landlord in the sum of $65,000, allegedly made on December 2, 1999, and testified as to the circumstances of the lump sum payment. Landlord denied receiving $65,000 in cash. While he admitted that on the date in question, he had signed and partially filled out a receipt, he asserted that he did not write in "$65,000."

Upon weighing the relative probative force of the conflicting testimony (see Kaiser v Fishman, 187 AD2d 623, 626 [1992]), we find insufficient persuasive proof in the record with respect to tenants' claim regarding the alleged $65,000 cash payment. However, since further proof may be available, there should be a new trial before a different judge.

McCabe, J.P., and Tanenbaum, J., concur.

Lippman, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: July 12, 2007

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.