| Goldstein v El-Adawy |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 52644(U) [22 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on November 26, 2008 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Eric P. Press, J.),
entered July 11, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of
$2,466.62 and, in effect, dismissed defendants' counterclaim.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiffs seek to recover the sum of $4,115, which defendants, plaintiffs' former landlords, retained out of plaintiffs' $6,900 security deposit. Defendants counterclaimed for arrears in rent, alleging, inter alia, that plaintiffs had occupied the subject premises after the termination of the lease. After trial, the court awarded plaintiffs $2,466.62 on their cause of action, allowing defendants to retain a portion of the security deposit representing reimbursement for work defendants performed on the house after plaintiffs moved out. The court specifically noted its finding that plaintiffs did not occupy the premises after the termination of the lease, and in effect dismissed defendants' counterclaim for rent. Defendants appeal from the judgment, arguing that plaintiffs owe them rent for occupying the premises after the termination of the lease.
In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles
of substantive law (see UCCA 1807). Defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to
rent arrears. To the extent that the court's decision was based upon credibility determinations with
respect to the date that plaintiffs vacated the apartment, we see no basis in the record to disturb these
determinations. The trier of fact "has the opportunity to observe and [*2]evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording
the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses" (Nobile v Rudolfo Valetin Inc., 21 Misc 3d
128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51962[U] [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2008]). The
deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to
judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UCCA
1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 26, 2008