Castillo v Galvano

[*1] Castillo v Galvano 2015 NY Slip Op 51073(U) Decided on July 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 13, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2014-818 RO C

Herbert Castillo and LILIAM CASTILLO, Respondents, July 13, 2015

against

Vincenzo Galvano, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Patrick J. Loftus, J.), entered October 28, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $3,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action against defendant, their former landlord, to recover their security deposit in the amount of $3,000. After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $3,000.

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 [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).

A security deposit remains the property of the tenant (see General Obligations Law § 7-103 [1]) and has 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 the tenant 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]). Here, while defendant asserted that plaintiffs had damaged the premises, he failed to submit any proof as to the value of the damage, such as by means of an itemized paid bill or two itemized estimates (see UJCA 1804).

The court accepted plaintiffs' version that a $3,000 security deposit had been given in cash, rather than defendant's claim that a $2,000 security deposit had been given by checks issued months after the tenancy began. As the Justice Court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see UJCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

Tolbert, J.P., Garguilo and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 13, 2015