Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ann E. O'Shea, J.), dated December 2, 2004. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover a deposit paid defendant to secure an apartment pending plaintiff's application to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for a subsidy pursuant to the Section 8 program. The parties executed a lease and landlord agreed to return the deposit, which represented a month's rent and the equivalent amount as a security deposit, if NYCHA awarded a
subsidy. Although defendant ultimately performed the repairs and improvements required by NYCHA inspectors for Section 8 approval, a month after the parties' agreement, plaintiff cancelled the agreement and demanded the entire deposit's return. Defendant returned the security portion and retained the rent portion, and this action ensued.

A small claims judgment must be affirmed if the record supports the conclusion that the determination afforded the parties substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). "[T]he decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence" (Levine v Cunningham, 5 Misc 3d 128[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51248[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists], citing Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]; see also McSpedon v Revzim, 5 Misc 3d 129[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51283[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] [the deference normally accorded the credibility determinations of a trial court "applies with greater force" in a small claims action]).

Defendant's witness testified that other families were interested in the premises, which [*2]was suitable for a large family such as plaintiff's, that defendant fulfilled his part of the agreement, withholding the premises from the market and, although not required by the agreement to do so, performing all modifications required by NYCHA for Section 8 approval. In any event, the record also supports the determination below that plaintiff failed to establish that NYCHA ultimately rejected the premises, following the repairs, as unsuitable for participation in the Section 8 program. Thus, it cannot be said that the court denied the parties substantial justice in dismissing the action.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 2007