Christopher I. Ezeoke, Appellant, v. Camillia Opene Udom, Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for an assessment of plaintiff's damages.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $12,000, representing rent arrears accruing from November 1, 2022, plus interest. Defendant interposed an answer and asserted a counterclaim. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that defendant was his tenant from 2015 through November 2023, that she shared an apartment with a roommate, that defendant's share of the rent was $1,000, that the parties had a written lease agreement that expired in 2021, and that he had previously commenced a summary holdover proceeding against defendant which was discontinued because the roommate was not named. The 90-day notice dated December 20, 2022, a stipulation of settlement dated July 26, 2023 discontinuing the proceeding, and a second 90-day notice dated July 26, 2023 were submitted to the Civil Court. Defendant acknowledged in her testimony that plaintiff was her landlord and that he owns the subject premises, but testified that her share of the rent was actually $1,050, and that, after being served with the initial 90-day notice in December 2022, she stopped paying rent beginning in January 2023 through her vacate date of October 29, 2023. Defendant testified that she would regularly cook for plaintiff and that he commenced the summary proceeding against her after she unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a dispute between him and another tenant. In a decision dated February 28, 2025, the Civil Court (Peter F. Lane, J.) determined that plaintiff's testimony, without any documentary evidence, did not sufficiently establish that he is the lessor or owner of the subject premises or that any arrears were owed. The Civil Court further found, in the alternative, that even if arrears were owed for the alleged period, such obligations were fulfilled by defendant's performance of services and payment of other monies. In a judgment entered May 22, 2025, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint and defendant's counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed his complaint.

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). 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 Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]).

"The essential elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach" (Davydov v Youssefi, 205 AD3d 879, 880 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]). A plaintiff's prima facie case for breach of contract may be established where a defendant concedes the existence of a contract and failure to perform (see Syczur v Sadaj, 9 AD2d 1017 [1959]; Service Alliance, Inc. v Betesh, 52 Misc 3d 131[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50966[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

The Civil Court's determination that plaintiff did not establish his prima facie case is not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Plaintiff's testimony, along with defendant's admissions that plaintiff was her landlord, that he owned the subject premises, and that she did not pay rent for various months (see Knutson v Sand, 282 AD2d 42 [2001]), sufficiently established plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to damages. Furthermore, the Civil Court's alternative finding that defendant's cash payments and performance of services constituted payment in full for the alleged period of nonpayment is similarly not supported by the evidence. Defendant did not testify that any other payments were made or that services, whether cooking or mediating plaintiff's dispute with another tenant, were performed as an alternative payment for rent. Issues of fact, however, still need to be determined, to wit, whether defendant tendered payment for November and December 2022, and whether she vacated the premises in October or November 2023.

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for an assessment of plaintiff's damages.

BUGGS, J.P., TOUSSAINT and LIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 17, 2026