JIAN XU v. JIN KON CHOI (2020)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $1,052.69, representing the amount she had been charged for removing certain electrical violations in an apartment plaintiff had purchased from defendant. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was responsible for paying that amount because defendant had created the electrical violations and thereby breached the contract of sale for the property.

In a small claims action, this court's 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 [2000]).

Where, as here, title to the property had closed and the deed had been delivered, “any claims the plaintiff might have had arising from the contract of sale were extinguished by the doctrine of merger unless there was a clear intent evidenced by the parties that a particular provision of the contract of sale would survive the delivery of the deed” (Bibbo v. 31-30, LLC, 105 AD3d 791, 792 [2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Rosner v. Bankers Std. Ins. Co., 172 AD3d 1257, 1259 [2019]; Josovich v. Ceylan, 133 AD3d 570, 572 [2015]). Since the contract provision upon which plaintiff relies in asserting breach of contract expressly states that it does not survive the closing, the City Court's judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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