SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS Appellate Term, Second Department
February 16, 2012
237 REALTY, LLC,
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo, Rockland County (Rhoda F. Shoenberger, J.), entered May 18, 2010.
Strongwater v 237 Realty, LLC
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 16, 2012
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,700.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover a security deposit in the sum of $2,700 paid to defendant pursuant to a lease agreement. At a non-jury trial, defendant asserted that the action should not have been commenced in the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo and that the proper venue was in Manhattan, where the premises leased by plaintiff is located. Defendant's agent testified that all of defendant's banking is conducted in Rockland County, and that all rent checks payable to defendant are sent to defendant at an address which is within the Town of Ramapo. This same address is also indicated on the lease as defendant's address. Following the trial, the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,700.
Contrary to defendant's contention, it was permissible for plaintiff to commence this action against defendant in the Small Claims Part of the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo since defendant's office is located within the municipality in which the court is located (see UJCA 1801, 1803 [a]).
Upon a review of the record, we find that substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UJCA 1804, 1807). Applying the narrow standard of review applicable in small claims actions (UJCA 1807), and giving due deference to the trial court's findings of fact (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 ), we find no basis to disturb the judgment awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,700.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed
Nicolai, P.J., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 16, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.