LANDLORD HAD NO PROOF OF DAMAGES BEYOND “ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR”
After he moved out of his apartment, D.F. filed a small claims case in the Kings County Civil Court seeking to recover his security deposit -- in the amount of $2250.
Because the judge ruled in the former tenant’s favor, an appeal ensued. And on its review of the record, the Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that within small claims disputes its function is limited to determining whether “‘substantial justice” has been achieved in accordance with “‘the rules and principles of substantive law.’”
Since the landlord failed to show that the damage purportedly caused by the tenant exceeded “ordinary wear and tear,” the AT2 concluded that the owner had no legal entitlement to retain the disputed funds, and left the outcome undisturbed.
Now that wasn’t extraordinary, at all.
# # #
DECISION