Rimma Kunik and Sheldon Zaretzky, appellants pro se. Griffin Alexander, P.C. (Logan R.D. Stagnitto, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County (Patrick J. Loftus, J.), entered March 28, 2022. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover $1,579, alleging that defendant, their former landlord, improperly deducted money from a security deposit and that they were entitled to recover a refundable deposit of $400 charged by defendant for additional keys. The trial evidence shows that plaintiffs vacated their apartment on June 30, 2021, before the end of the lease, that plaintiffs agreed to remain responsible for rent until the apartment was re-rented and the new tenant took possession or their lease ended, and that the new tenant took possession on July 15, 2021. Following a nonjury trial, the Justice Court dismissed the action, finding no credible evidence that the $400 was a refundable deposit and further finding that plaintiffs were liable for rent from July 1, 2021 to July 14, 2021, as the new tenant did not take possession until July 15, 2021.

When reviewing the decision of a court in a small claims action, appellate 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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

A landlord has an affirmative duty to act in good faith to mitigate damages should a tenant vacate "in violation of the terms of the lease" (Real Property Law § 227-e). That lease will automatically terminate in the appropriate circumstances when the lease of a new tenant goes into effect, thereby mitigating the prior tenant's damages (id.). As the new tenant's lease here took effect on July 15, 2021, under the circumstances presented, plaintiffs remained liable for rent from July 1, 2021 to July 14, 2021, which amount defendant could offset from the security [*2]deposit. As we find no basis to disturb the determination of the Justice Court that plaintiffs failed to establish that the key charges were a refundable deposit, the judgment dismissing plaintiffs' action provided substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

GARGUILO, P.J., DRISCOLL and WALSH, JJ., concur.