Appeal from a decision of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Lawrence Donohue, J.), entered September 9, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered September 17, 2008 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

In 2002, the parties contracted for the sale, from plaintiff to defendant, of a parcel of land to be developed as a residential property. Pursuant to the contract, defendant made a $5,000 down payment into an escrow account maintained by plaintiff's attorney. The contract provided, among other things, that it could be cancelled by the purchaser if the necessary permits, variances and approvals by state and local agencies were denied. When the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied defendant's application for a building permit, defendant cancelled the contract and demanded that the escrow funds be returned. Plaintiff refused to release the funds and commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000 as compensation for various expenses allegedly incurred, for which defendant was liable under the contract. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $5,000. After a nonjury trial, the District Court issued a decision, dated September 9, 2008, dismissing plaintiff's claim, finding for defendant on the counterclaim, and directing the escrow agent, who was not made a party to this action, to release the escrow amount of $5,000 to defendant within two weeks of the order's date. Defendant appeals from the decision. A judgment was subsequently entered on September 17, 2008 which merely dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and made no reference to the counterclaim. We deem the appeal from the decision to be from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [*2][c]).

At trial, plaintiff did not prove that defendant was contractually bound to bear the expense of installing a county water line to her premises as a condition of the subdivision and sale of the parcel to be conveyed, or that the installation had actually occurred and that had she paid the cost thereof. Plaintiff also failed to establish that the contract required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of the demolition and replacement of a shed located on the proposed subdivision. In any event, there was only a single estimate of the cost to reconstruct the shed (UDCA 1804; see e.g. Klein v LBK Constr., 15 Misc 3d 132[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50678[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Thus, it cannot be said that the District Court's determination to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action denied plaintiff substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 12, 2010