Francisca Rodriguez, Appellant, v. Luis Hernandez, Respondent. (2023)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant, her former landlord, to recover her $3,000 security deposit. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court found that the sum of plaintiff's security deposit was $1,500 and that defendant incurred $1,010 in costs that could be deducted from the security deposit. Consequently, the court awarded plaintiff a judgment in the principal sum of $490.

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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams, 269 AD2d at 126).

Generally, a security deposit remains the property of the tenant (see General Obligations Law § 7-103 [1]) and must be returned at the conclusion of the tenancy, absent proof, for example, that tenant caused damage beyond that attributable to ordinary wear and tear (see Cuevas v Rowinski, 70 Misc 3d 130[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51522[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Gable v Cahill, 69 Misc 3d 128[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51135[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]).

A review of the record here indicates that substantial justice was done between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807). The court, having heard the parties' conflicting accounts of the condition of the premises and the evidence submitted by defendant, could properly determine that the disrepair of the apartment was beyond ordinary wear and tear and supported offsetting the costs incurred by defendant from plaintiff's security deposit. Therefore, there is no basis to disturb the court's judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: November 3, 2023