| Bluestein v DiVito |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 50189(U) [58 Misc 3d 155(A)] |
| Decided on February 8, 2018 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Laura DiVito, appellant pro se. Yoheved Bluestein, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Long Beach, Nassau County (Frank D. DiKranis, J.), entered August 3, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a $2,000 security deposit, plus $2,000 in rent she had paid for the month of November 2012. After a nonjury trial, at which both parties appeared pro se, a judgment was entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $4,000.
In a small claims action, this court's 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, 126 [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).
Although defendant claimed that plaintiff was not entitled to the return of her security deposit in the sum of $2,000 because she had damaged a kitchen countertop, defendant failed to [*2]establish the amount of her damages relating to the kitchen countertop. In addition, as plaintiff testified that she had paid rent for November, and as there was ample unrebutted evidence showing that the premises had not been habitable during November, the City Court could properly find that defendant was not entitled to retain the November rent.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
GARGUILO, J.P., MARANO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.