Opinion
2007-1893 N C.
Decided June 29, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Bonnie P. Chaikin, J.), entered January 9, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's claim and awarded defendant the principal sum of $3,900 on her amended counterclaim.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and NICOLAI, JJ.
In this small claims action, plaintiff, a landlord, seeks to recover four months' rent from defendant, his former tenant, who moved out of the subject apartment four months prior to the end of the lease term. Defendant interposed a counterclaim, which, as amended at trial, sought the return of a $3,900 security deposit. After trial, the District Court found that the subject apartment was occupied by new tenants for the last two months of defendant's term, that defendant was not liable for the rent for the four months after she moved out because the lease was illegal and she moved out after learning that the building did not conform to the certificate of occupancy, and that defendant was entitled to the return of her security deposit.
In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law ( see UDCA 1807). The trier of fact 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 ( Devi v Manigat , 16 Misc 3d 133[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]). The deference accorded to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court given the limited standard of review (UDCA 1807; see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125). In the circumstances presented, defendant was within her rights in cancelling the lease and moving out of the illegal apartment ( see New Talli Enters., Inc. v Van Gorden, 2003 NY Slip Op 51066[U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2003]; see generally Brum v City of Niagara Falls, 145 AD2d 928). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Nicolai, JJ., concur.