| DiBattista v Rossi |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 51411(U) [49 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on September 16, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), entered November 7, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,729.11.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action against defendant, their former landlord, to recover the sum of $4,700, which included their security deposit of $2,160. Defendant appeals from a judgment, after a nonjury trial, in which the City Court awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,729.11, after setoffs for various sums. On appeal, defendant contends that the City Court failed to credit him with the cost of four items allegedly damaged, and two items allegedly stolen, by plaintiffs.
In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).
Upon a review of the record, we find that the City Court properly determined that plaintiffs established their prima facie case for the return of the security deposit, which remained the property of plaintiffs (see General Obligations Law § 7-103 [1]; Cruz v Diamond, 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50187[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]) and that defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a further setoff. As the City Court's determination is supported by the record and provides the parties with substantial justice (see UCCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.
Tolbert, J.P., Marano and Connolly, JJ., concur.