Opinion
2008-1658 S C.
Decided October 6, 2009.
Appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Gigi A. Spelman, J.), entered January 17, 2008. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding.
ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: MOLIA, J.P., NICOLAI and TANENBAUM, JJ.
In this nonpayment proceeding, landlord seeks to recover rent and real estate taxes allegedly due in the total sum of $17,200. Pursuant to the lease, which gave tenants an option to purchase the subject house, tenants were responsible for paying taxes and insurance in addition to their monthly rent. Tenants asserted a defense of payment, alleging that they had made a cash payment to landlord in the sum of $65,000 on December 2, 1999 and that said payment more than covered any alleged arrears claimed by landlord.
The proceeding went to a nonjury trial in 2005. At that trial, tenants testified that they had made the $65,000 cash payment. After trial, the District Court found in favor of tenants, essentially on the basis of credibility, and landlord appealed. On that appeal, this court found that tenants had presented insufficient persuasive proof of the alleged $65,000 cash payment and remitted the matter for a new trial before a different judge, on the ground that further proof of that payment might be available ( 16 Misc 3d 133 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51489[U] [2007]).
At the second trial, it was established that it was landlord and tenants' usual practice for tenants to drive to landlord's home to pay the rent in cash. Prior to tenants' arrival, landlord would fully fill out a receipt, including the amounts, from a receipt book, rip the receipt out of the book, and have the receipt in his pocket before going to tenants' car to meet with them. After counting the money, landlord would hand tenants the receipt.
Landlord conceded at the second trial that tenants had spoken to him about possibly paying more than the usual rent in order to accelerate the end date of the lease and the purchase option. Such payment was contingent upon tenant Alex Garanvolgyi's father giving him money. Mr. Garanvolgyi's father had given him significant sums of money in the past. Tenants testified that, in November 1999, Mr. Garanvolgyi's father visited and gave them $105,000 in cash, and that this gift was given because Mr. Garanvolgyi's father had cancer, and feared it would be the last time he saw his son. Mr. Garanvolgyi's father passed away about six months later.
Tenants testified that they decided to pay $65,000 on the lease and keep the other $40,000 in order to do work on the house, which needed significant repairs. They testified that, on December 2, 1999, Mr. Garanvolgyi called landlord before going to his house to pay the rent, and told him to leave the amount on this receipt blank as tenants would be paying more than the usual amount. Although the parties had stipulated before trial that landlord had left the amount fields on this receipt blank, landlord initially denied at trial ever having given tenant a receipt with no amount filled in. Landlord subsequently admitted that the amounts on the receipt were left blank, although he did not remember why. It was undisputed that tenants ultimately filled in the amount fields on this receipt as $65,000. Landlord had no explanation for why this exchange was different from every other exchange.
After the second trial, the District Court again found for tenants, stating, in pertinent part:
"Among other things, the court is persuaded by petitioner's inability to explain why he did not fill in the number fields on the receipt on this occasion, by petitioner's inability to recall how much money he received on the date in question and by the many inconsistencies in his testimony.
While there is no denying that the circumstances in this case are unusual and that the parties' method of doing business is not perhaps the way others or myself, would do business, this court finds respondents' explanation to be entirely plausible."
We affirm. The decision of the 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 e.g. Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544). Furthermore, the determination of the trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference as the court has the opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, thereby affording the trial court a better perspective from which to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see e.g. Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511). It was well within the province of the judge to credit tenants' testimony, which was corroborated by the receipt and by numerous circumstantial details recounted by tenants. On the other hand, landlord offered only evasive and contradictory testimony, and conclusory denials of payment. Accordingly, as the court's determination to dismiss the petition is supported by the record, the final judgment is affirmed.
Molia, J.P., Nicolai and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.