Rucks v Sunderland

[*1] Rucks v Sunderland 2010 NY Slip Op 50711(U) [27 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on April 13, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 13, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2009-1603 K C.

Jody Rucks, Respondent,

against

Linda Sunderland, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered February 17, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $650.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover his security deposit from defendant. Defendant contended that plaintiff had forfeited his right to recover the security deposit since he had vacated the premises prior to the time he had agreed upon in a written agreement entered into between them. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court credited plaintiff's testimony that plaintiff's obligation to remain in the apartment for three months was conditioned upon defendant's cleaning up the apartment within a reasonable time. The court found that plaintiff met his burden of showing that defendant did not fulfill this condition and that he had a right to recover from defendant the amount he had paid to her as a security deposit. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $650.

Resolution of the issues presented herein hinged upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses. The determination as to credibility is for the trier of fact, as it had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses (see McGuirk v Mugs Pub, 250 AD2d 824 [1998]; Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 AD2d 253 [1993]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]), and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the decision could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens, 160 AD2d 544). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court, given the limited standard of review (CCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). A review of the record on appeal establishes that the Civil Court's [*2]resolution of the issue of credibility in favor of plaintiff was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

We note that while the Civil Court applied principles of landlord-tenant law in reaching its determination, there was no proof that plaintiff had been granted exclusive possession and control over a specifically identified portion of the premises, which is essential to the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship (see 1 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 4:1, at 170-173 [4th ed]). In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that plaintiff occupied the premises as a licensee. Since no landlord-tenant relationship was created between the parties, their rights and obligations were governed by the law of contracts (see 1 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 4:18, at 191 [4th ed]). Although defendant contends that she was entitled to 30 days' notice before plaintiff moved out, there was nothing in the parties' agreement which provided for such notice. Moreover, even if there were a landlord-tenant relationship, no such statutory notice requirement is imposed upon a tenant in New York City (see Real Property Law § 232-a; Srinivasan v Silvi, 19 Misc 3d 138[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50871[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

The judgment in favor of plaintiff is therefore affirmed, as it rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Golia, J.P., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 13, 2010