Albanese v Zeejah

[*1] Albanese v Zeejah 2014 NY Slip Op 50482(U) Decided on March 17, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 17, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and TOLBERT, JJ
.

John Albanese, Respondent,

against

Farhan Zeejah, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Douglas J. Lerose, J.), entered August 1, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,300 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a security deposit for an apartment he had rented from defendant. Defendant counterclaimed to recover for damage to the apartment and other items. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found that plaintiff was entitled to the return of his security deposit and that defendant had failed to establish his counterclaim. Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The decision of a 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 (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Contrary to defendant's arguments on appeal, the record supports the District Court's implicit determinations that plaintiff was not responsible for any damage to the apartment beyond normal wear and tear and that defendant did not establish his entitlement to be reimbursed by plaintiff for a certain co-op fee. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

We note that, contrary to defendant's further argument on appeal, a new trial is not required because the District Court failed to set forth findings of fact (see CPLR 4213 [b]), as it can be determined from the record how the court arrived at its award (see e.g. Cherry v Mendez, 41 Misc 3d 132[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51795[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; Brown v Joseph A. Altman, P.C., 40 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51406[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2014