Catsiapis v Ebrahimi-Adib (2013 NY Slip Op 52026(U))

Catsiapis v Ebrahimi-Adib

2013 NY Slip Op 52026(U) [41 Misc 3d 142(A)]

Decided on November 29, 2013

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

George C. Catsiapis, Appellant, —

against

Tannaz Ebrahimi-Adib, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered April 19, 2012. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $500.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $500, representing defendant's unpaid portion of Con Edison utility bills for the months of February, March, April and May, 2011 for the apartment they had shared. A default judgment was subsequently entered in plaintiff's favor which was, thereafter, vacated. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court found that the evidence was insufficient to support plaintiff's claim. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the court failed to consider the Con Edison bills, which had been admitted into evidence.

The uncontroverted evidence adduced at trial showed that defendant had been plaintiff's roommate during the relevant period of time; that defendant had agreed to pay half of the [*2]apartment's electric and gas bills; that defendant had stopped paying these bills in February 2010; that the Con Edison bills for the months of February, March, April and May 2011 totaled $1,000.05; and that defendant thus owed plaintiff $500.03 for these months. Therefore, the Civil Court's determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]), and the parties were not provided with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). However, contrary to his contention, plaintiff failed to establish at trial his entitlement to recover an unspecified amount as marshal's fees allegedly incurred upon the marshal's attempt to execute upon the default judgment prior to its vacatur.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $500, the amount sued for.