Court Opinion

ID: 9905179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:09:25.056214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:52.684605
License: Public Domain

Yiping Lyu v Fan (2023 NY Slip Op 51283(U))

[*1]

Yiping Lyu v Fan

2023 NY Slip Op 51283(U)

Decided on November 27, 2023

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 27, 2023
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Tisch, J.

570819/23

Yiping Lyu, Plaintiff-Appellant,
againstLina Fan, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Aija Tingling, J.), entered December 7, 2022, after trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.
Per Curiam.
Judgment (Aija Tingling, J.), entered December 7, 2022, reversed, without costs, and new trial ordered.
This small claims action seeks money damages for breach of an oral lease and other agreements between the parties after claimant, who rented a room in defendant's apartment, was barred from reentering the premises at the outset of the COVID pandemic, after a trip to China. Following a trial at which only plaintiff testified, the Court dismissed the claim on the ground that claimant did "not present sufficient evidence demonstrating entitlement to reimbursement from defendant for expenses incurred."
While the factual findings of the Small Claims Court are ordinarily given deference, particularly because such findings often rest on the credibility of witnesses (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), the court did not make any credibility finding against claimant, either as to her claim that defendant breached the lease, or as to her claim that defendant orally agreed to pay her $60 a day for the period she was out of the apartment. While this Court can make its own findings (see CPLR 5501; Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]), this is not the proper case for the exercise of that power, since much would depend on the credibility of the witnesses (see Power v Falk, 15 AD2d 216, 218 [1961]). In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand for a new trial.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concurDecision Date: November 27, 2023