SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
August 16, 2011
ANTHONY PANTALEONE, APPELLANT, -AND- FRANCES PANTALEONE,
Ortiz v Pantaleone
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 16, 2011
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Goshen, Orange County (Kimberly Van Haaster, J.), entered November 18, 2008. The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,861.71 as against defendant Anthony Pantaleone.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, defendants' former tenant, commenced this small claims action to recover a security deposit in the amount of $2,600. After a non-jury trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,861.71 as against Anthony Pantaleone (defendant), after a setoff for use and occupancy and an unpaid water bill. On appeal, defendant argues that he is entitled to a further setoff for the estimated cost to paint the premises and the cost of the transcript of the trial.
Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 ; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 ). The decision of a 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 Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 ). This standard applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess the credibility of the witnesses (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 ; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 ).
A tenant's security deposit remains the property of the tenant
(General Obligations Law § 7-103 ) and must be returned at the
conclusion of the tenancy (Cruz v Diamond, 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY
Slip Op 50187[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]) absent, for example, proof that the
tenant 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]). Here,
defendant failed to establish that tenant had caused any damage to the premises beyond
ordinary wear and tear. In any event, a single estimate for painting is insufficient proof of
damages (see UJCA 1804). We further note that, as a general rule, a civil litigant cannot
recover as damages his expenses in the prosecution or defense of an action (see Hartford
Cas. Ins. Co. v Vengroff Williams & Associates, Inc., 306 AD2d 435 ; Ajar v Ajar, 207 AD2d 469, 471
; Wu v Kao, 194 AD2d 666 ). As the record supports the
Justice Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the
Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 16, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.