This court held a bench trial of the instant small claim matter on November 3, 2022. The trial was held on the record at 111 Centre Street, New York, New York. Both parties appeared in-person.

On April 18, 2022, Tracey Hejailan-Amon "(Claimant") commenced this instant small claim action under Index No.: SC-000751-22/NY against Isabella "Rupa" De Conti-Mikkilineni ("Defendant") to recover $5,600.00 for breach of contract or warranty. (See Small Claims Case Record Card). Claimant was self-represented. Mr. Mohsen Hassan, a friend and co-worker, testified as her witness. Claimant provided email correspondence, WhatsApp text messages, PayPal Invoice, among other items, collectively marked as Exhibit 1.

Defendant was self-represented. Defendant provided email correspondence, WhatsApp text messages, PayPal Invoice, among other items, collectively marked as Exhibit A.

Claimant testified that on October 15, 2021 Defendant invited her to share an apartment rental in St. Moritz, Switzerland for the coming winter season. On October 30 she agreed to share the rental for the month of February 2022. The parties discussed rentals on Airbnb, however Defendant did not finalize the rental on Airbnb. Instead, Defendant communicated with the owner on WhatsApp and procured the accommodations there. On October 31, Defendant paid the homeowner 7,000.00 CHF via PayPal and she sent Claimant the receipt on November 1. In turn, Claimant then paid Defendant $5,600 via check for her portion. Claimant testified that Defendant failed to provide her with the details of their accommodations, a lease or an invoice. She had no details about the rental, and Defendant did not add her name to the lease. Claimant later learned that the apartment was not an Airbnb listing, therefore there were no Airbnb safeguards in place such as cancellation policy, location details and owner's contact information. In addition, Defendant was unable to secure two additional weeks in March for Claimant and a friend to stay without Defendant. Claimant avers that the lack of transparency of the arrangement [*2]made her feel unsafe. As a result, she requested a refund, but Defendant refused to oblige. Furthermore, she also alleges that Defendant committed multiple violations of Airbnb's terms of service.

Claimant's witness, Mr. Mohsen Hassan, testified that he researched the transaction and the apartment rental on Airbnb. He advised Claimant not to go and to get her money back from Defendant as it had become an issue of safety.

Defendant testified that she was researching a vacation home for her and Claimant, her friend of four years. Defendant's friends even visited the apartment and sent her a video to ensure everything was legitimate. There was no reason for Claimant not to trust her. Once Claimant confirmed dates for February, Defendant attempted to reserve the apartment on Airbnb and the dates were no longer available. She and the owner communicated on WhatsApp through text messages and FaceTime calls. He was only willing to rent his apartment for a six-week minimum. Ultimately, Defendant reserved the apartment — she alone would stay for two weeks in January and the parties would stay together for the entire month of February. She sent Claimant the PayPal invoice on November 1 which included the owner's name and email. Claimant requested an invoice for her portion of the rent and a housekeeper. They did not reserve March.

Defendant asserted that Claimant did not request a formal contract when she agreed to share the apartment, and Defendant didn't have one to provide to her. Instead, she had an informal agreement with the owner memorialized in an email. On November 5, Claimant requested to rent the apartment for two additional weeks in March with another friend and to the exclusion of Defendant. Defendant told her that the apartment may no longer be available, besides Defendant might want the right of first refusal since she researched and vetted the apartment. While they waited for an update from the owner, Defendant notified Claimant that she was invited to interclub events and may now stay through March 7 with another friend and to the exclusion of Claimant. At which point, Claimant became uncomfortable and requested a refund on November 14. Defendant reminded her that the fee was non-refundable. As a compromise, she requested two weeks use of the apartment in February without Defendant. A few days later, the point was moot because the apartment was not available for March.

As a result, Defendant sought other potential housemates to help Claimant mitigate her loss, however Claimant did not try to mitigate her own losses. Defendant also testified that Claimant's commitment was not contingent on her being able to stay in the apartment for March.

Moreover, Defendant stated that to her determent, she relied on Claimant's promise and made every effort to compromise and accommodate her.

Wide latitude is given to all litigants before the Small Claims Court and small claims' cases are informal and simplified procedures in which the court seeks to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law. See NYCCCA § 1804.

Basic contract principles are applicable to this case. The elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) formation of a contract between the parties; (2) performance by one party; (3) failure to perform by the other party; and (4) resulting damage (see Quest Bldrs. Group, Inc. v. 125th & Lenox Owner LLC, 2022 NY Misc. LEXIS 1578) citing (Harris v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 913 N.Y.S.2d 161 [1st Dept 2010]).

Here, Claimant proffered evidence showing that she entered into an agreement with Defendant, to share an apartment rental in St. Moritz, Switzerland for February 2022. As a result, Defendant paid the owner the initial deposit based on her commitment. She reimbursed Defendant for her portion of the rental fee.

Claimant's matter presents several issues that preclude an award. Prior to committing to the February dates, Claimant did not state that the agreement was conditional on there being a written lease with the landlord, that Airbnb was the only platform to be used, that she be able to extend her stay into March or that she have two weeks of exclusive use in February. As a result, the failure of Defendant to comply with these conditions do not demonstrate a breach of contract. Nor do they justify Claimant cancelling their agreement and being reimbursed. In fact, Claimant sought to extinguish their original agreement and substitute it with a new agreement based on terms and conditions not agreed to between the parties.

Furthermore, this Court has considered and will not render a decision on whether there were violations of Airbnb policies because they are not a party to the litigation. Also, it is irrelevant to this breach of contract claim.

However, this Court will further address Claimant's assertion that Defendant did not provide her with a lease and her name was not on the lease as a basis for terminating their agreement. First, even if Airbnb platform was used, the party who confirms the reservation has an Airbnb account which contains proof of their stay, terms and conditions and includes the number of guests. Guest names are optional even for international reservations. Second, Airbnb does not automatically provide a written lease. A request for a written lease from the owner must be made prior to confirming an Airbnb reservation. In this case, Claimant did not request a written lease before committing to February. Therefore, she did not provide Defendant the opportunity to request a written lease from the owner before their reservation. Assuming arguendo, even if this reservation was made on Airbnb, Claimant's assertion is not meritorious.

Third, Claimant requested a refund on November 14 which is 14 days after the reservation was confirmed on October 31. Again, even if Airbnb platform was used, nothing in the record suggests that this reservation was refundable after 14 days. Airbnb reservations are not always 100% refundable instead there are different refund guidelines set by each owner, if any. Even if Claimant believed this reservation was made on Airbnb, she never inquired about the refund guidelines to safely ensure a refund could be issued should a problem arise.

This Court finds that Claimant failed to proffer a meritorious claim for breach of contract. Moreover, Defendant cannot be held liable for breaching duties self-imposed by Claimant.

Accordingly, regarding Index No.: SC-000751-22/NY, it is the verdict of the Court that judgment is granted in favor of Defendant, and this case is dismissed, and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in Defendants favor accordingly.

This constitutes the decision, verdict, and order of the Court.