Wyant v Catlin

[*1] Wyant v Catlin 2014 NY Slip Op 51589(U) Decided on October 29, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ.
2013-1614 D C

Danielle Wyant and Ardie Simmons, Respondents,

against

Maribeth Catlin and TODD CATLIN, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County (Jonah Triebwasser, J.), entered April 29, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,393.82.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action against defendants, their former landlords, to recover a portion of their security deposit in the amount of $2,393.82.

After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiffs judgment in the principal amount sought.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). 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 deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

The Justice Court properly determined that the portion of the security deposit sought to be recovered by plaintiffs remained the property of plaintiffs (see General Obligations Law § 7-103 [1]) and had to be returned at the conclusion of the tenancy (see Cruz v Diamond, 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50187[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]) absent, for example, proof that plaintiffs had caused damage beyond that attributable to ordinary wear and tear (see generally Finnerty v Freeman, 176 Misc 2d 220, 222 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1998]). As the record fails to support defendants' claim that plaintiffs caused damage, and supports the Justice Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Tolbert, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: October 29, 2014