Ernest W. Hernandez, Appellant, v. Lakeview Arms Apartments, Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against his former landlord to recover his security deposit in the amount of $260. At a nonjury trial, both plaintiff and defendant called defendant's property manager as a witness. The property manager testified that she retained plaintiff's security deposit because plaintiff caused damage to the apartment beyond ordinary wear and tear. The property manager presented photographs and an inspection report documenting that the sink vanity in the bathroom had been cracked, and that there was a hole in the bathroom wall. Plaintiff admitted to causing these damages. The property manager claimed that defendant spent approximately $219 to purchase a new sink vanity for the bathroom of the apartment and $80 to repair the walls in the apartment. However, she did not submit itemized estimates or a paid bill reflecting the cost of the foregoing items. Following the trial, the Justice Court (Steven H. Klein, J.) found in favor of defendant, crediting the property's manager's testimony that the cost of the repairs exceeded the amount of plaintiff's security deposit. A judgment was entered on January 30, 2025 dismissing the action. On appeal, plaintiff makes two arguments: that the Justice Court was bound by a ruling in a prior case that plaintiff "did not ow[e] any previous rent" and that defendant did not submit proof of the value of the damages.

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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). 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 Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

"Generally, a security deposit remains the property of the tenant (see General Obligations Law § 7-103 [1]) and must be returned at the conclusion of the tenancy absent proof, for example, that [the] tenant caused damage beyond that attributable to ordinary wear and tear" (Gelbart v Spota, 81 Misc 3d 136[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51404[U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023]; see Yafei Li v Dao Ying Gao, 71 Misc 3d 139[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50478[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2021]). "Where a landlord establishes that the tenant caused such damage, it is the landlord's further burden to establish the reasonable value of the cost to repair the damage" (Trimble v Hughes, 67 Misc 3d 143[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50742[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020]; see Pignatello v Dutchess Knolls, Inc., 51 Misc 3d 145[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50736[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]; Mills v Lynch, 48 Misc 3d 131[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51046[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the judgment here rendered substantial justice between the parties (see UJCA 1804, 1807).¹ As plaintiff only sought the return of a security deposit in the amount of $260, and admitted to causing the aforementioned damage in the apartment, necessitating the replacement of a sink vanity and repair of a hole in the bathroom wall, the Justice Court rationally credited the property manager's testimony that the "reasonable value" of the cost of these repairs exceeded the amount of the security deposit (see UJCA 1804). Under the particular circumstances presented, the submission of documentation to establish the exact cost of these repairs was unnecessary in light of the property manager's credible testimony and the amounts involved. Furthermore, plaintiff did not demonstrate, at trial, that there had been a prior ruling regarding rent owed.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

WALSH, J.P., VAZQUEZ-DOLES and LICCIONE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 4, 2026

FOOTNOTES

1.   It is noted that plaintiff has raised no issue regarding defendant's compliance with General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (e).