Sunhee Moon v Khazraie

[*1] Sunhee Moon v Khazraie 2007 NY Slip Op 52298(U) [17 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on November 21, 2007 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through December 6, 2007; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 21, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2007-267 S C.

Sunhee Moon, Respondent,

against

Davoud Khazraie, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered September 21, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $2,904.88.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant, her former landlord, to recover the sum of $3,000. She asserted claims for the return of her security deposit and defendant's breach of the warranty of habitability (see Real Property Law § 235-b). Defendant admitted withholding the security deposit but alleged that plaintiff had damaged his step when her piano was being moved out of the apartment. After a nonjury trial, the court found in favor of plaintiff, and judgment was entered in the sum of $2,904.88. Defendant appeals, and we now affirm the judgment.

Substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807). It was undisputed that defendant did not return plaintiff's security deposit, and, at trial, plaintiff produced, inter alia, a paid receipt, signed by defendant, to establish the amount thereof. For his part, defendant failed to adequately support his contentions that plaintiff had damaged his step or that it would cost $1,900 to repair the step as he claimed. Additionally, the court could credit plaintiff's testimony that defendant breached the warranty of habitability and that defendant was on notice of conditions in the apartment (see Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316 [1979]; Sazer v Marino, 266 AD2d 448, 449 [1999]). We note that the deference normally accorded a trial court's credibility determinations "applies with greater force" in small claims proceedings in light of the limited scope of review (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Thus, on this appeal, defendant fails to [*2]
establish that the court's determination to grant plaintiff judgment was so clearly erroneous as to deny him substantial justice (see Forte v Bielecki, 118 AD2d 620, 621 [1986]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 21, 2007