GOLDSTEIN v. STEAGALL (2024)

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $3,480 for damages to his lawn and floorboards allegedly caused by defendant, his former tenant, during her occupancy. Defendant counterclaimed to recover her $2,850 security deposit. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,666.64 on his cause of action and awarded defendant the principal sum of $1,183.36 on her counterclaim, resulting in a net judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $483.28. Defendant appeals.

In a small 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; see UDCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

“Upon determination of a small claim, the court shall direct judgment in accordance with its findings” (UDCA 1805 [a]; see generally CPLR 4213 (b) [“The decision of the court ․ shall state the facts it deems essential”]; Oduroh v Sawadogo, 66 Misc 3d 136[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50028[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]). Here, the District Court did not make any findings of fact or state its rationale for awarding plaintiff $1,666.64 on his cause of action and awarding defendant $1,183.36 on her counterclaim, for a net judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $483.28.

Defendant was entitled to the return of her entire security deposit minus any damages she caused that were beyond ordinary wear and tear (see General Obligations Law § 7-103 [1]; Gelbart v Spota, 81 Misc 3d 136[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51404[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023]). Assuming the court had a basis for finding, and intended to find, that plaintiff established that defendant had caused $1,666.64 in such damages, defendant would be entitled to the return of her $2,850 deposit minus $1,666.64, i.e., $1,183.36. While $1,183.36 is what the court awarded defendant on her counterclaim, the court then inexplicably subtracted that amount, the net amount owed to defendant, from the amount the court found in damage to plaintiff's property, i.e., $1,666.64, and awarded plaintiff the remainder, i.e., the net amount of $483.28. This had the effect of awarding plaintiff not only the entire security deposit of $2,850, which plaintiff had retained, but also an additional $483.28, despite apparently finding that defendant had only caused $1,666.64 in damage beyond ordinary wear and tear.

However, upon this record and in the absence of any findings of fact by the Civil Court, we cannot determine whether plaintiff had in fact sustained damages in the sum of $1,666.64 (see Kolchin v Bay Ridge Nissan, Inc., 72 Misc 3d 135[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50723[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; Hynard v Cuttino, 40 Misc 3d 128[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51103[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]; Kirschner v Viala, 38 Misc 3d 131[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52413[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). In view of the foregoing, substantial justice (see UDCA 1804, 1807) requires a new trial.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

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