Mills v Lynch

[*1] Mills v Lynch 2015 NY Slip Op 51046(U) Decided on July 7, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 7, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., IANNACCI and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2013-2009 N C

Michael Mills and EMILY MILLS, Respondents, July 7, 2015

against

Dennis Lynch, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Gary F. Knobel, J.), entered March 22, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $3,750.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, defendant's former tenants, commenced this small claims action to recover a security deposit in the amount of $3,750. Defendant commenced a separate small claims action against plaintiffs to recover the sum of $4,900 for damage to his property. After a joint nonjury trial of the two actions, the District Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $3,750 in this action and dismissed the separate action (see Lynch v Mills, __ Misc 3d ___, 2015 NY Slip Op ____ [appeal No. 2013-2008 N C], decided herewith). On appeal, defendant argues, in effect, that the court should have offset the award to plaintiffs based on the alleged property damage.

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" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [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).

It is undisputed that plaintiffs paid defendant the $3,750 security deposit and that defendant did not return that deposit. Defendant failed to establish, as a setoff, the reasonable value or necessity of any of the repairs allegedly made to the premises (see UDCA 1804; Jain v Rich, 24 Misc 3d 133[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51389[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; Vila v Brewer, 21 Misc 3d 140[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52357[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Thus, the District Court's determination provided the parties with substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807), and we find no basis to disturb it.

Accordingly, the judgment awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $3,750 is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: July 07, 2015