Seltzer v Roazzi
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 28, 2004
Civil Court, Kings County
Gregory Seltzer, Plaintiff,
against
Richard Roazzi, Defendant.
8405SKK2004
Eileen N. Nadelson, J.
Plaintiff, a former tenant, instituted this Small Claims action to recover his security deposit and the value of property allegedly damaged by Defendant, the former landlord. Plaintiff resided in the subject apartment for one year and surrendered possession of the premises at the expiration of the leasehold. Plaintiff paid all of the rent due and owing under the lease prior to his vacatur.
To evidence his right to the sums sought, Plaintiff, in addition to his own testimony, produced two witnesses who were friends of his. These witnesses testified as to the state of the apartment on the day Plaintiff surrendered possession. Their testimony was based on personal knowledge, their having frequently visited Plaintiff and having assisted Plaintiff in his move. Plaintiff and his witnesses all stated that the apartment was left in good repair, and that Plaintiff had never nailed anything to the walls nor in any way damaged the floors.
Defendant counterclaimed for the alleged repairs that he had to make to the apartment caused by Plaintiff's nailing objects to the walls and having damaged the apartment floors. In addition to his own testimony, Defendant offered the testimony of his fiancée who claimed that the apartment was left in a damaged state by Defendant. Further, Defendant introduced a document that he asserted indicated his cost of making the repairs to the premises. This document was a computer-generated statement allegedly produced by another tenant of Defendant's who is in the paint and maintenance business, but who is not licensed as such by the state of New York. This tenant did not appear in court to testify as to the repairs he allegedly made, and Plaintiff challenged the veracity of the document and the signature of the repairman. This document indicates that Defendant paid for the alleged repairs in cash.
The law does not require the trier of fact to accept all of the evidence produced at trial. In deciding what evidence to accept, the fact-finder must make his or her own evaluation of the testimony given by each of the witnesses, and must decide how much weight to give to that [*2]testimony. In this context, the trier of fact must use all of his or her experience and background; there is no magic formula by which testimony may be objectively evaluated. 1:8, New York Pattern Jury Instructions-Civil, 3d Ed.
In evaluating testimony, the judge or jury has the opportunity to directly observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, affording the trier of fact the ability to evaluate the credibility of the parties and the witnesses. Harrington v. Levitzke, 2 Misc 3d 139[A], 784 NYS2d 920 (2d Dept. 2004). This first-hand observation is crucial, especially in cases in which the ultimate conclusion rests, in large measure, on considerations relating to the credibility of the witnesses. Fryling v. Omer Construction Co., 286 AD2d 983, 730 NYS2d 914 (4th Dept. 2001).
In the instant case, the evidence presented was totally contradictory; as such, the questions of fact implicit in this case demand that credibility judgments play a vital part in the final decision of the court. Grant v. Belsky, 33 AD2d 751, 305 NYS2d 958 (1st Dept. 1969). In such situations, the courts are clear in stating that credibility determinations are to be left to the trier of fact, provided that the eventual decision can be reached by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Tri-State Consumer Insurance Co. v. Dabush, 264 AD2d 848, 695 NYS2d 414 (2d Dept. 1999).
In too many instances litigants believe that the number of witnesses or documents introduced are determinative of their ultimate success. In this they are mistaken. The court is concerned with the quality, not the quantity, of the evidence used to support or contradict a given proposition. The courts are clear in holding that even uncontradicted evidence may be insufficient to prove a claim if the trier of fact is unconvinced of the veracity of the testimony produced. Brennan v. Bauman & Sons Buses, Inc., 107 AD2d 654, 484 NYS2d 25 (2d Dept. 1985)
In the instant case, after evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds for the Plaintiff and dismisses the Defendant's counterclaim. Goldman v. Quintavalle, 184 Misc2d 310, 708 NYS2d 592 (1st Dept. 2000). The document presented by Defendant, even if true, is insufficient to establish in and of itself that the alleged repairs were caused by Plaintiff's actions.
Dated: December 28, 2004
__________________________
EILEEN N. NADELSON, J.C.C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
