Harris v. Diorio

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Diorio

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50854(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Harris v. Diorio (Harris v. Diorio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Diorio, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Candra Harris, Respondent,

against

Peter Diorio, Appellant.

Clifford L. Davis, Esq., for appellant. Candra Harris, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Peekskill, Westchester County (Reginald J. Johnson, J.), entered October 14, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $800.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that plaintiff gave defendant an $800 deposit to lease an apartment, pending further payment of a security deposit in the sum of $1,750 and the execution of a written lease. The lease was never executed, and plaintiff never took possession of the premises. Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the $800 deposit. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $800.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The receipt signed by defendant, upon plaintiff's payment of the $800 deposit, contained [*2]no provision for defendant's retention of the deposit in the event the lease was never executed. The agreement at issue was contingent upon the parties' executing a formal lease and, thus, under the circumstances presented, constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree (see Rivera v Alaimo, 54 AD3d 325 [2008]; Butten v Maggio Realty LLC, 46 Misc 3d 136[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51885[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]). Consequently, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807; Ross, 269 AD2d 584; Williams, 269 AD2d 125).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 22, 2017

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Candra Harris, Respondent,

against

Peter Diorio, Appellant.

Clifford L. Davis, Esq., for appellant. Candra Harris, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Peekskill, Westchester County (Reginald J. Johnson, J.), entered October 14, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $800.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that plaintiff gave defendant an $800 deposit to lease an apartment, pending further payment of a security deposit in the sum of $1,750 and the execution of a written lease. The lease was never executed, and plaintiff never took possession of the premises. Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the $800 deposit. Following a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $800.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

The receipt signed by defendant, upon plaintiff's payment of the $800 deposit, contained [*2]no provision for defendant's retention of the deposit in the event the lease was never executed. The agreement at issue was contingent upon the parties' executing a formal lease and, thus, under the circumstances presented, constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree (see Rivera v Alaimo, 54 AD3d 325 [2008]; Butten v Maggio Realty LLC, 46 Misc 3d 136[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51885[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]). Consequently, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1804, 1807; Ross, 269 AD2d 584; Williams, 269 AD2d 125).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 22, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harris v. Diorio, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-diorio-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack