Nancy Cabrera, Plaintiff, v. Vanessa Solomon, Defendant. (2026)

A trial on this matter was held on May 4 and 6, 2026. This court finds that plaintiff Nancy Cabrera ("plaintiff" or "Cabrera") failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that defendant Vanessa Solomon ("defendant" or "Solomon") caused damage to her property and therefore grants judgment for defendant dismissing the case.

Plaintiff landlord brought this action against defendant, a former tenant, seeking $50,000 in damages, consisting of $17,000 for repairs she allegedly had to make because of the damage defendant caused to the subject premises, and $33,000 for "having a business inside the property without consent." In particular, defendant used her residential address as City Sculpting, LLC's business address. Defendant testified that she used her home to store her paperwork and computer but had a studio at another location where she did all her production.

Plaintiff claimed that defendant engaged in the following conduct which caused $17.000 in damages: 1) defendant installed bunk beds, shelving units and desks in multiple rooms without permission, causing damage to the walls; 2) defendant replaced the washer and dryer; 3) defendant came back to the premises to pick up some items before the lease ended but after she already turned in the keys and forced the door open; 4) defendant dirtied the carpets; and 5) defendant placed a rain catcher barrel in the back of the house.

Plaintiff presented pictures which were taken two days after defendant left the premises. Those pictures showed: 1) a rain catcher barrel resting on a shelf outside; 2) damage to the walls where the bunk beds and shelving units had been removed, with a darker color of paint than the rest of the wall; 3) wood planks which had been removed from the walls; 4) plants in the back of defendant's car which she picked up from the premises before the lease ended; and 5) carpets with debris.

Defendant presented pictures which were time stamped before she moved in, showing that cubbies, shelving units, bunk beds, and desks were already in place. Defendant also testified credibly that she was friends with the previous tenants, and that "Lloyd,"a contractor and one of the tenants, built and installed the bunk beds, cubbies, and desks for his family. Regarding the carpet, defendant testified that she hired a carpet cleaner from Home Depot and that the carpets were fully cleaned before she moved out, and that the pictures showing debris on the carpet were taken when the built-in closets and shelves were being dismantled after she had already moved out. Regarding the washer and dryer, defendant testified that she did not replace the washer and dryer as they worked perfectly well throughout her tenancy. Plaintiff did not present any evidence disproving this testimony.

To recover for alleged property damage, plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant's conduct caused the claimed damage. Berdy v. Tilcon NY, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 50041(U), 18 Misc 3d 129(A), 129A (2008) (App. Term 2d Dept. 2009). Mere proof that damage existed is insufficient; plaintiff must establish a causal connection between defendant's conduct and the alleged injury. Herling v. Callicoon Resort Lodges, Inc., 214 AD3d 1192, 1193 (3rd Dept. 2023); Russell v. A. Barton Hepburn Hosp., 173 AD2d 985, 986-987 (3rd Dept. 1991) This court credits defendant's testimony concerning the preexisting installation of the shelving units, bunk beds, and desks. That testimony was corroborated by contemporaneous photographs taken before defendant occupied the premises. Even assuming the conditions depicted in plaintiff's photographs constituted damage, plaintiff failed to establish that defendant caused those conditions rather than the removal work undertaken at plaintiff's direction after defendant vacated the premises. Plaintiff also did not refute that the wood planks resulted from her directing that the bunk beds, shelving units and desks be removed. Plaintiff also did not present any evidence that defendant replaced the existing washer and dryer, or that defendant caused any damage to the door which she allegedly forced open. Regarding the debris on the carpets, since the pictures were taken after defendant already moved out, there was no evidence to refute defendant's testimony that the debris resulted from construction work directed by plaintiff after defendant moved out. Plaintiff also did not present any evidence that the rain catcher barrel in the back of the house caused property damage. Accordingly, this court finds that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant caused the alleged property damage.

This court further finds that defendant's merely listing her residential address as the business mailing address for her LLC, and having a desk and computer at her residential address did not constitute an impermissible commercial use or a breach of the residential lease, as there was no evidence presented that actual business operations were conducted on the premises. 2118 Group, LLC v. Lior Group LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 50213(U) **, 2023 NY Misc. LEXIS 1117, *12(Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2023) (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2023) (court distinguished between registering or leasing a property through an LLC and actually conducting commercial business activities there, noting that when an apartment is occupied strictly as a home and lacks physical commercial office footprints, the tenancy remains residential in character). See also, Peck v. Lodge, 2003 NYLJ LEXIS 2315, *11 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2003) (tenant who uses his apartment to do paper work, make and receive faxes and phone calls, and send and receive mail did not significantly breach the dwelling-only provision of his lease). For example, there was no evidence that customers visited, sculpting inventory was maintained, employees worked there, or that any sculpting occurred at the residence. See, Haberman v. Gotbaum, 182 Misc 2d 267, 269 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 1999). Accordingly, this court finds that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant caused any damages based on her claim that defendant used her residence to operate a sculpting business.

In affording plaintiff every favorable inference that reasonably could be drawn from the evidence adduced at trial, plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that defendant cause damage to her property. Despite being given ample opportunity to do so, plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence to establish that defendant caused any damages or that plaintiff expended any monies to repair such damages. See, Smith v Knights Collision Experts Inc., 2018 NY Misc. LEXIS 5689, *1 (2018). Plaintiff produced no invoices, repair bills, contractor testimony, estimates, receipts, or other competent evidence establishing either the necessity or cost of repairs. Accordingly, the case is dismissed. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: July 4, 2026

Hon. Tehilah H. Berman

Judge, Civil Court Kings County

Tehilah H. Berman, J.