Opinion
No. 2013–1614 D C.
2014-10-29
Danielle WYANT and Ardie Simmons, Respondents, v. Maribeth CATLIN and Todd Catlin, Appellants.
Present: ANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County (Jonah Triebwasser, J.), entered April 29, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $2,393.82.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action against defendants, their former landlords, to recover a portion of their security deposit in the amount of $2,393.82.
After a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiffs judgment in the principal amount sought.
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 A.D.2d 584 [2000]; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126 [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 A.D.2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v. Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 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 A.D.2d at 126).
The Justice Court properly determined that the portion of the security deposit sought to be recovered by plaintiffs remained the property of plaintiffs ( see General Obligations Law § 7–103[1] ) and had to be returned at the conclusion of the tenancy ( see Cruz v. Diamond, 6 Misc.3d 134[A], 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 50187[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005] ) absent, for example, proof that plaintiffs had caused damage beyond that attributable to ordinary wear and tear ( see generally Finnerty v. Freeman, 176 Misc.2d 220, 222 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1998] ). As the record fails to support defendants' claim that plaintiffs caused damage, and supports the Justice Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.