[*1]
Farrington v Provenzano
2015 NY Slip Op 50768(U) [47 Misc 3d 148(A)]
Decided on May 6, 2015
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on May 6, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : GARGUILO, J.P., MARANO and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2014-595 S C

Elaine A. Farrington, Appellant,

against

Anne Provenzano, Respondent.


Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered April 1, 2014. The judgment, upon a decision, after a nonjury trial, finding in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $950 on plaintiff's cause of action and in favor of defendant in the principal sum of $2,000 upon defendant's counterclaim, awarded defendant the principal sum of $1,050.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, defendant's former tenant, commenced this small claims action to recover her security deposit, and the cost of fuel oil and propane. Defendant counterclaimed for rental arrears and damage done to the premises. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that her lease had expired on May 31, 2012 and that she had thereafter remained in the home as a month-to-month tenant, paying $2,000 a month, the amount she had been paying pursuant to her lease. On October 1, 2012, plaintiff gave defendant notice that she would be out of the house by November 1, 2012. The District Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to her $600 pet security fee and $350 in fuel oil and propane, and that defendant was entitled to $2,000 in rent for the month of November. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant in the principal sum of $1,050.

On an appeal in a small claims action, our review is limited to determining whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; see UDCA 1804). Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]), as plaintiff failed to give defendant a full month's notice, as required by Real Property Law § 232-b, of her intent to terminate her month-to-month tenancy and did not remove her belongings and return the keys until mid-November.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Garguilo, J.P., Marano and Connolly, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: May 06, 2015