HIDALGO v. SAMARAS (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,000, alleging that defendant had improperly withheld a rental security deposit. Following a nonjury trial, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,500, and defendant appeals, arguing, for the first time, that he was not the proper party to be sued for the return of the security deposit.

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” (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). By failing to raise in a Justice Court the defense that he was an improper party to be sued for the return of the security deposit, defendant waived the issue (see Crowder v LaGrande, 36 Misc 3d 140[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51488[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). In view of the foregoing, the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

RUDERMAN, P.J., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.