Kings Park 8809, LLC v Stanton-Spain

[*1] Kings Park 8809, LLC v Stanton-Spain 2015 NY Slip Op 51560(U) Decided on October 19, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 19, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-869 Q C

Kings Park 8809, LLC, Appellant,

against

Felicia Stanton-Spain, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered September 19, 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, among other things, unpaid rent for the four months that remained on the parties' residential lease after defendant had surrendered possession, and for property damage. The evidence, at a nonjury trial, established that the surrender followed the parties' stipulation settling a prior nonpayment proceeding, which stipulation awarded landlord several months of accrued unpaid rent, and plaintiff's demand that defendant vacate, after defendant had defaulted in making the stipulated payments. Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the small claims action, with prejudice, on the grounds that the stipulation and surrender of possession ended tenant's liability for rent, that the property damage claim should have been raised in the summary proceeding, and that, in any event, the damage claim was without merit.

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, 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]). The deference normally accorded to the credibility determinations of a trial court applies with greater force in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

We agree with the Civil Court that plaintiff was estopped from recovering the rents for the remainder of the term (Guy v Washington, 44 Misc 3d 137[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51247[U], *1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014] ["where a landlord, before the end of the term, requests a tenant to vacate and the tenant complies, the landlord is estopped from enforcing the lease"]; see also D & B Enters. No. 2 v Cablam Inc., 188 Misc 2d 522, 523 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2001]; 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant—Summary Proceedings § 23:60 [4th ed 1998]). Moreover, while absent an estoppel, such rents may be recoverable in circumstances [*2]where the parties have explicitly contracted to render the tenant liable for post-termination rent (see Holy Props. v Cole Prods., 87 NY2d 130, 134 [1995]; West Flatt Assoc. v Maggiulli, 66 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2009]; Gallery at Fulton St., LLC v Wendnew LLC, 30 AD3d 221, 222 [2006]; cf. Patchogue Assoc. v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,108 AD3d 659, 660 [2013]), here plaintiff did not establish that the lease contained any provision for the recovery of post-termination rents. With respect to the property damage claim, while the Civil Court erroneously held that the claim should have been raised in the summary proceeding (see RPAPL 741 [5]), the court clearly rejected the claim on the merits ("[l]ooking at the photos . . . I don't see anything . . . beyond normal wear and tear of an apartment"). Upon a review of the record, we find that the court's determination rendered substantial justice between the parties (CCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: October 19, 2015