Cesar A. Cifuentes, Respondent, v. Lydia Godbee, Appellant. (2025)

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the City Court for a new trial in accordance with this decision and order.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against his former landlord seeking the return of his $1,500 security deposit, which he did not receive upon his vacating the premises on November 3, 2023. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court (Lissette G. Fernandez, J.) awarded plaintiff a judgment in the principal sum of $1,500.

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" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2006]).

"The entire amount of [a security] deposit or advance shall be refundable to the tenant upon the tenant's vacating of the premises except for an amount lawfully retained for the reasonable and itemized costs due to non-payment of rent, damage caused by the tenant beyond normal wear and tear, non-payment of utility charges payable directly to the landlord under the terms of the lease or tenancy, and moving and storage of the tenant's belongings" (General Obligations Law § 7-108 [1-a] [b]). A landlord forfeits the right to retain any portion of a security deposit if it fails to provide the tenant with an itemized statement of the basis for any withholding within 14 days of tenant vacating (id. at [1-a] [e]).

Plaintiff introduced into evidence a flash drive containing screenshots of messages between the parties. That evidence was reviewed by the trial court, but the exhibits delivered to this court were corrupted and, consequently, cannot be reviewed. However, the trial transcript clearly indicates that the text messages to plaintiff did not provide costs for each item of damage that was alleged to be beyond normal wear and tear, and therefore, pursuant to General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (b), those alleged damages cannot provide a basis for defendant's retention of the security deposit. On the other hand, the trial transcript does not indicate whether defendant's list of damages included unpaid rent for the month of November 2023, to which defendant claims to be entitled based on plaintiff's acknowledgment at trial that, on October 10, 2023, he gave defendant notice that he would be terminating his month-to-month tenancy, and vacating the premises less than a month later (see Real Property Law § 232-b).

As evidence of the contents of the text messages between defendant and plaintiff is necessary for our review, the record is inadequate to determine whether the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see Bayside Gables Homeowners v Azzizi, 76 Misc 3d 7 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; Ceresa v Segundo's Landscaping & Contr., 11 Misc 3d 132[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50350[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, a new trial is required, limited to the issue of whether the messages defendant sent to plaintiff, in his recitation of damages, included nonpayment of November rent as a basis for retention of the security deposit.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the City Court for a new trial in accordance with this decision and order.

GARGUILO, P.J., DRISCOLL and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: July 29, 2025