Samuel v 2345 Ocean Ave Assoc., LLC

[*1] Samuel v 2345 Ocean Ave Assoc., LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 51557(U) Decided on October 15, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 15, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-2353 K C

Nathan Samuel, Appellant,

against

2345 Ocean Ave Associates, LLC, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered January 22, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover from defendant, his landlord, the principal sum of $500 for damage to plaintiff's personal property allegedly caused by a leak in his apartment. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 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).

Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff established defendant's liability for the loss of his personal property, he failed to provide competent evidence of his damages. To establish damages for the loss of personal property, there must be some evidence of the property's value at the time of the loss, which value can be shown by means of testimony regarding the property's "original cost, age and condition at the time of the [loss]" (Slepoy v Kliger, 26 Misc 3d 126[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52603[U], *3 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Henderson v Holley, 112 AD2d 190 [1985]). A small claims court is not bound by the rules of evidence (CCA 1804), and an owner of personal property "familiar with its quality and condition, may testify as to [the property's] value" (Korn v American Airlines, Inc., 11 Misc 3d 87, 88—89 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]; see also Fassett v Fassett, 101 AD2d 604, 605 [1984]; 36 NY Jur 2d, Damages §§ 82, 87]). Here, plaintiff failed to provide competent evidence of the property's value at the time of the loss.

As the judgment in this case is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: October 15, 2015