Gable v. Corcoran Group

Gable v Corcoran Group (2023 NY Slip Op 50793(U)) [*1]

Gable v Corcoran Group

2023 NY Slip Op 50793(U)

Decided on July 21, 2023

Appellate Term, Second Department

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 21, 2023

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MARINA CORA MUNDY, J.P., LISA S. OTTLEY, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ
2022-361 K C

Phil Gable, Appellant,

against

The Corcoran Group, Respondent.

Phil Gable, appellant pro se. The Corcoran Group, respondent pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rachel Freier, J.), entered April 6, 2022. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the $5,040 commission he paid to defendant, a real estate brokerage company through which plaintiff rented an apartment. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that, in 2018, with the assistance of defendant real estate broker, he leased an apartment. Plaintiff asserted that, at some point, he had learned that it was an illegal basement apartment. He nevertheless continued to live in the apartment for the duration of the lease term. An officer of defendant company who appeared on defendant's behalf (see CCA 1809 [b]) opined that the apartment was a "garden apartment," and asserted that defendant had considered the apartment to be legal. Following the trial, the action was dismissed.

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" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

Since plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained any damages as a result of his rental of the apartment, we conclude that the dismissal of the action rendered substantial justice between [*2]the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).

We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MUNDY, J.P., OTTLEY and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2023