Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about August 26, 2005, after trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding him damages in the principal sum of $5,000. PER CURIAM.

Judgment (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about August 26, 2005, reversed, without costs, and action dismissed.

The judgment issued in plaintiff's favor upon the trial of this small claims action is not supported by the evidence nor does it accomplish "substantial justice ... according to ... substantive law" (CCA 1804, 1807). Plaintiff's express agreement to accept the cooperative apartment premises "as is ... except for reasonable wear and tear" and to rely on his own inspection of the apartment precludes his claim that the defendant cooperative corporation failed to deliver the apartment as promised (see Kasten v Golden, 50 AD3d 1098 [2008]). To the extent that the action is based on a claim of fraudulent inducement, that claim is similarly barred because plaintiff "specifically disclaimed his reliance on any promises or warranties concerning the [apartment's] condition" (id.). Plaintiff's assertion that the defect was latent finds no support in the record, particularly given plaintiff's own testimony that the allegedly "poor workmanship" of the (nonparty) contractor in replacing the bathroom tiles created an "extremely uneven surface". We note plaintiff's failure to adduce any professional opinion or otherwise substantiate through competent evidence that the tile work was defective or that any such defect was the precipitating cause of the wall collapse that occurred roughly 16 months after the closing. "A judicial award, even one issued in the context of a small claims action, must rely upon competent evidence, and not mere inference or surmise" (Rollock v
Gerald Modell Inc., 169 Misc 2d 663, 665 [1996]). [*2]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 22, 2008