Sajo Realty Corp. v Antoine

[*1] Sajo Realty Corp. v Antoine 2015 NY Slip Op 51076(U) Decided on July 14, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 14, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SOLOMON, JJ.
2009-1861 K C

Sajo Realty Corp., Respondent,

against

Jim Antoine, Appellant.

Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Laurie Lynne Lau, J.), entered June 23, 2009. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded landlord possession and the principal sum of $4,550.29 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

After a nonjury trial of this nonpayment summary proceeding, the Civil Court found that landlord had established that tenant owed $4,550.29 through June 2009, and otherwise had established its prima facie case. Tenant appeals, arguing, among other things, that he does not owe the money alleged by landlord and that there were conditions in the apartment requiring repair.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that 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 Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]). Here, the court specifically rejected tenant's testimony that landlord was charging more for monthly rent than that to which the parties had orally agreed, and the court credited the testimony of landlord's witness that tenant had not allowed access for repairs. In addition, while tenant demonstrated that he had made regular monthly payments to landlord during the time period at issue in this proceeding, the evidence submitted by landlord demonstrates that tenant was given credit for those payments and that a large balance remained on tenant's account. Tenant's remaining arguments on appeal are without merit or rely on allegations that are dehors the record.

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 14, 2015