From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wicklund v. Mukhtyar

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Jun 8, 2017
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 50789 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)

Opinion

2015-2057 W C

06-08-2017

Janine Wicklund, Appellant, v. Usha Mukhtyar, Respondent. NO.

Janine Wicklund, appellant pro se. Matthew J. Costa, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).


PRESENT: :

Janine Wicklund, appellant pro se. Matthew J. Costa, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of New Rochelle, Westchester County (Susan I. Kettner, J.), entered December 17, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the City Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,600.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks the return of her $3,600 security deposit from defendant, her former landlord. Plaintiff contends that any damage to the premises was the result of ordinary wear and tear, which defendant disputes.

In a small claims action, appellate review is limited to determining whether substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

A tenant's security deposit is the property of the person making the deposit, and must be held in trust by the landlord (see General Obligations Law § 7-103) and returned at the tenancy's conclusion, absent proof that the tenant caused damage beyond that attributable to ordinary wear and tear (see Mazzarelli v Moniaci, 21 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51967[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that plaintiff had caused any damage beyond normal wear and tear. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to the return of her $3,600 security deposit.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the City Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,600.

Marano, P.J., Tolbert and Brands, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: June 08, 2017


Summaries of

Wicklund v. Mukhtyar

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Jun 8, 2017
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 50789 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)
Case details for

Wicklund v. Mukhtyar

Case Details

Full title:Janine Wicklund, Appellant, v. Usha Mukhtyar, Respondent. NO.

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Jun 8, 2017

Citations

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 50789 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)

Citing Cases

Quijano v. Rowinski

This deference to a trial court's credibility determinations applies with even greater force to judgments…

Gable v. Cahill

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has ...…