Latuso v Noulas

[*1] Latuso v Noulas 2007 NY Slip Op 52361(U) [18 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on December 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 13, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-2078 S C.

Stephen Latuso, Appellant,

against

Barbara Noulas, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Gigi A. Spelman, J.), entered August 16, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $188 on her counterclaim.

Judgment modified by reducing the award to defendant upon the counterclaim to the principal sum of $140; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought the return of his $1,600 security deposit. Defendant interposed a counterclaim seeking the sum of $3,808, claiming that she was entitled to recover two months' unpaid rent as well as amounts spent to repair damage to the premises. She also claimed that she was entitled to reimbursement in the sum of $140 for plaintiff's share of the utility bill.

The parties had entered into a one-year lease which was to terminate on August 31, 2005. Plaintiff testified that prior to the time he vacated the apartment, on June 7, 2005, defendant had agreed to return his security deposit to him. Despite the fact that he kept the premises clean and left it that way, defendant did not return his security deposit. Defendant testified that plaintiff had damaged the carpeting and the ceiling, and that she had to expend significant sums to repair the damage. Moreover, plaintiff owed her rent for June and July of 2005, as well as his portion of a utility bill. Plaintiff conceded that he owed defendant for his portion of the utility bill, but stated that he had thought that defendant would deduct that amount from the security deposit. Ultimately, the court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action, finding that defendant was entitled to apply the $1,600 security deposit toward the June 2005 rent, and awarded defendant the principal sum of $188 on the counterclaim, representing the amount due from plaintiff for his portion of the utility bill.

The standard of review on appeal of a small claims judgment is whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive [*2]law" (UDCA 1807). The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that its conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses. This principle "applies with greater force" to judgments rendered in small claims proceedings, given the limited scope of review (Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]; see also Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707 [1997]).

Upon a review of the record, we are of the view that the court below properly held that defendant was entitled to apply plaintiff's security deposit towards payment of the June 2005 rent (see 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 26:36, at 311 [4th ed]). Moreover, although the court found that the credible evidence did not support defendant's allegations that plaintiff had damaged the premises, in view of the fact that plaintiff acknowledged that he owed defendant a portion of the utility bill, it was proper for the court to award her damages on the counterclaim for said sum. However, since defendant only demanded reimbursement of $140 in the counterclaim, and since the evidence at trial proved that plaintiff was responsible for paying only that amount, substantial justice requires that the principal sum awarded to defendant on the counterclaim be reduced to $140.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 13, 2007