Wicklund v. Mukhtyar

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJune 8, 2017
Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50789(U)
StatusPublished

This text of Wicklund v. Mukhtyar (Wicklund v. Mukhtyar) 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
Wicklund v. Mukhtyar, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion



Janine Wicklund, Appellant,

against

Usha Mukhtyar, Respondent.


Janine Wicklund, appellant pro se. Matthew J. Costa, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of New Rochelle, Westchester County (Susan I. Kettner, J.), entered December 17, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the City Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,600.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks the return of her $3,600 security deposit from defendant, her former landlord. Plaintiff contends that any damage to the premises was the result of ordinary wear and tear, which defendant disputes.

In a small claims action, appellate review is limited to determining 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 [2000]).

A tenant's security deposit is the property of the person making the deposit, and must be held in trust by the landlord (see General Obligations Law § 7-103) and returned at the tenancy's [*2]conclusion, absent proof that the tenant caused damage beyond that attributable to ordinary wear and tear (see Mazzarelli v Moniaci, 21 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51967[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that plaintiff had caused any damage beyond normal wear and tear. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to the return of her $3,600 security deposit.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the City Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,600.

Marano, P.J., Tolbert and Brands, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 08, 2017

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

Related

Williams v. Roper
269 A.D.2d 125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Ross v. Friedman
269 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wicklund v. Mukhtyar, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wicklund-v-mukhtyar-nyappterm-2017.