DE LA ROSA v. ORTIZ (2019)

Judgment (Marian C. Doherty, J.), entered October 23, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the trial evidence supports the court's determination that defendants did not wrongfully detain or refuse to return plaintiff's personal property that she left behind at her former residence (see Bullfrog, LLC v. Nolan, 102 AD3d 719 [2013]). The credited testimony established that plaintiff abandoned the items at issue by waiting approximately seven years after her removal from the residence by police before seeking its return (see Henryka v. Amalgamated Warbasse House, Inc., 34 Misc 3d 157[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50421[U] [App Term 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2012] ), and by further failing to avail herself of scheduled opportunities to retrieve the items after this action was commenced. As these findings were based on credibility determinations and supported by the record, they should not be disturbed (see Hass & Gottlieb v. Sook Hi Lee, 55 AD3d 433 [2008]). Nor, in any event, did plaintiff provide evidence of the property's value and condition, which was necessary for her to establish damages (see Charles v. Boland, 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51524[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2017] ).

Per Curiam.