In a small claims case brought in the Nassau County District Court, MG sued his former tenant, JS, for $3,480 (purportedly due to damage to his lawn and floorboards), while JS counterclaimed for the return of her security deposit, $2850.
After a trial, the Nassau County judge found that MG was only entitled to recover $1,666.42, and awarded JS $1,183.36 -- but inexplicably issued a net judgment in MG’s favor in the amount of $483.28.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that the court below had failed to provide any findings of fact or rationale for its determination. While JS was entitled to the return of her security, minus any damages beyond “ordinary wear and tear,” the court’s judgment effectively granted MG more than what was found to be due to the landlord.
Due to the lack of clarity and the absence of proper findings, the Appellate Term reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial to ensure substantial justice between the parties.
Does that now add up?
# # #
DECISION