Richard Singh, Appellant, v. Satwantie Ramnandan, Vishnu Ramnandan, Vishwananuth Ramnandan, Angeline Ramnandan, Mahendranauth Ramnandan and Khemwatie Ramdoolar, Respondents. (2024)

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial before a different judge.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $8,000 from defendants, his former tenants, for unpaid rent and property damage. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff, appearing pro se, testified that defendants failed to pay rent for June and July 2020, and about damages to the apartment that plaintiff characterized as beyond ordinary wear and tear. After plaintiff's testimony, defendants' counsel was allowed to cross-examine plaintiff. Vishnu Ramnandan (defendant) then testified that he paid the rent for June and July 2020 in cash, and that he did not have receipts, but that plaintiff had never provided him with rent receipts when plaintiff collected the rent. During the trial, both parties presented photographs illustrating the condition of the apartment, and plaintiff also presented receipts for repairs to the apartment. After defendant's testimony, the court concluded the proceedings without offering plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine defendant. In a decision dated June 15, 2023, the Civil Court found that defendant "credibly testified that rent was paid for June and July [2020] in cash," and directed the Clerk of the Court to enter a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $690 for damage to the apartment beyond ordinary wear and tear based on the evidence submitted by plaintiff. A judgment awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $690 was subsequently entered on August 31, 2023, and plaintiff appeals on the ground of inadequacy arguing, among other things, that he should have been given the opportunity to cross-examine defendant.

It is well settled that "[c]ross-examination of adverse witnesses is a matter of right in every trial of a disputed issue of fact" (Matter of Friedel v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY, 296 NY 347, 352 [1947]; see Mujica v Jerome-Human, 65 Misc 3d 158[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51978[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Fachlaev v Hopkins, 38 Misc 3d 131[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52419[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; Rizopoulos v Cartelli, 4 Misc 3d 127[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50619[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]; Murov v Celentano, 3 Misc 3d 1, 3 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]; Graves v American Express, 175 Misc 2d 285, 286 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1997]). The record reflects that, while defendants' counsel was allowed to cross-examine plaintiff, plaintiff was not offered an opportunity to cross-examine defendant. Further, after defendant testified, plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence showing his practice of providing defendant with rent receipts, but the Civil Court would not admit this evidence and abruptly concluded the proceedings. Consequently, a new trial is required in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial before a different judge.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: July 26, 2024