In this NYC Civil Court, Small Claims Part Matter the Claimant, Nicholas W. Antonelli (hereinafter, "Claimant"), filed a Statement of Claim against the Defendant, Lauren Raffaele (hereinafter, "Defendant"), seeking damages in the amount of $3,000.00 for an alleged failure to pay back money loaned. A bench trial was held to resolve all issues on February 19, 2026, and decision was reserved.

The New York City Civil Court Act (hereinafter referred to as "CCA") directs that "the court shall conduct hearings upon small claims in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law and shall not be bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading for evidence, except statutory provisions related to privileged communications"(NYCCCA §1804). Therefore, the Court is bound to render substantial justice according to the rules and principals of substantive law (Skelly v Ford Lincoln of Queens Blvd., 51 Misc 3d 144(A) [2d Dept., App Term, 2016]). The trier of fact regarding issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (Vizzari v State of New York, 184 A.D 2d 564 [1992]). However, "No Judgement, even in Small Claims actions, can rest entirely on hearsay evidence" (Zelnick v Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., 242 A.D 2d 227 [App Div. 1st Dept., 1997]). Testimony and evidence were presented by both Claimant and Defendant. Claimant alleges that the funds provided to Defendant between April and May of 2025 constituted a loan with the expectation of repayment. To support this claim, Claimant presented a bank statement documenting withdrawals on various days totaling $2,710.00.

Defendant denies the allegation and asserts that there was no promise of repayment during their communications. According to Defendant, Claimant repeatedly expressed a desire [*2]to assist her and her family financially and stated his intention to support her whenever she needed. Therefore, Defendant maintains that the funds were in fact a gift and there is no obligation to repay.

In cases that appear in Small Claims Court, the claimant bears the burden of proving their claim by a preponderance of the evidence (NYCCCA §1804).

In the matter at hand, the sole evidence presented by the Clamant was a bank record which neither identified the withdrawals as a loan, nor identified the individual receiving the loan. No written or oral agreement, or any other documentary evidence was submitted, indicating that Defendant did in fact agree to, or breach, a loan agreement. The Court also examined email communications provided by Defendant concerning Defendant's need for money but found no evidence of a commitment or promise to repay.

Without that evidence, Claimant did not meet his burden of proof. "No judgment without more can rest entirely on hearsay", thus, Claimant's testimony without more documentary evidence is insufficient to establish the existence of a loan (Zelnick). The burden of proof requirement is contained in the instruction book available to litigants when they file their statement of claim with the Civil Court Clerk, as well as posted on the Civil Courts Website. The Court does not notify a party regarding what is needed to prove or defend their case. Rather, it is up to the litigant to ask for help or educate themselves on their burden of proof. Whether the litigant knows of this requirement is not an excuse for the failure to produce the necessary evidence.

As to Defendant's argument, the communications provided do not suggest the existence of a loan agreement with the obligation to repay. However, the communications also do not suggest that these payments were intended as a gift. The Court is not persuaded by the argument that these payments were gifts made under the pretext that the parties were "friends." The evidence presented suggests the Defendant continuously manipulated the Claimant to provide her with additional funds. Therefore, the Defendant did not prove her defense.

However, the absence of an intention to make a gift does not prove that the money was given to the Defendant pursuant to a loan agreement. Therefore, the failure of the Defendant to prove her defense does not negate the failure of the Claimant to meet his burden of proof.

Accordingly, the Claimant failed to meet his burden of proof, and therefore, substantial justice dictates that judgment is for the Defendant, and the case is dismissed.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.