Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Five Star Nail Salon v. Keith Brewley

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


May 23, 2011

FIVE STAR NAIL SALON,
RESPONDENT,
v.
KEITH BREWLEY,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered October 19, 2009. The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $800.

Five Star Nail Salon v Brewley

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 23, 2011

PRESENT:PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover from defendant, its former landlord, a security deposit in the amount of $800. Defendant contended that plaintiff was not entitled to the return of the security deposit because plaintiff had made alterations to the premises which defendant had to correct. Defendant was unable to produce any receipts to show the expenses allegedly incurred in repairing the premises. After a non-jury trial, the Civil Court found that plaintiff was entitled to the return of the security deposit as defendant had failed to present any proof of his expenses.

This court's review is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807). Applying that limited standard, we find that while defendant might have been entitled to retain plaintiff's security deposit to compensate him for the repairs he contended that he was required to have done as a result of plaintiff's alleged damage to the premises, defendant failed to offer sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim (see CCA 1804).

In view of the foregoing, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur. Decision

Date: May 23, 2011

20110523

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.