Jane A. Saliba, Appellant, v. MHANY (2026)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $5,500 in damages for breach of contract. Defendant failed to appear for trial. At an inquest, plaintiff testified that defendant was her former landlord and that the damages she sought were for food (because she could not prepare meals in the apartment), new furniture, and cleaning supplies required due a rodent infestation and recurrent flooding. Following an inquest, the Civil Court dismissed the action.

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

"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]; see Liberty Equity Restoration Corp. v Maeng-Soon Yun, 160 AD3d 623, 626 [2018]). While plaintiff did not provide any lease or other contract to the court, she appears to be arguing that defendant breached the implied warranty of habitability due to flooding and a rodent infestation. Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff properly demonstrated such a breach, consequential damages, such as to personal property, for food or cleaning supplies, are not recoverable for such a breach (see Concetto v Pedalino, 308 AD2d 470 [2003]; Harvey v Proto Prop. Servs., 63 Misc 3d 165[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50946[U] [App Term 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Joseph v Apartment Mgt. Assoc., LLC, 30 Misc 3d 142[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50303[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). It is noted that the damages plaintiff seeks in this action did not include any refund of rent.

As plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit, we find that the court's determination rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 17, 2026