Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered May 6, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000 and dismissed defendant's counterclaims.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover $5,000 in unpaid rent. Defendant counterclaimed to recover a brokerage fee for allegedly obtaining a new tenant for plaintiff, and attorney's fees for defending plaintiff's vice president on a series of criminal violations of local ordinances. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000 and dismissed defendant's counterclaims.

In a commercial 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" (UDCA 1807-A [a]; see UDCA 1804-A; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant's arguments on appeal lack merit. We note that the doctrine of respondeat superior, applicable to tort liability, does not render a principal liable for its agent's criminal defense fees (cf. Rausman v Baugh, 248 AD2d 8, 10 [1998]), and a provision in a lease allowing a landlord to recover possession based upon the nonpayment of rent does not preclude the landlord from enforcing the lease by seeking unpaid rent in a plenary action (see Patchogue Assoc. v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 37 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). As the court's determination is supported by the record, substantial justice has been done between the parties (see UDCA 1804-A, 1807-A).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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