balance of the security deposit that defendants had retained. It declined to award plaintiff
punitive damages pursuant to General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (g), which permits
such an award where a landlord acts "willfully" in failing to timely return a security deposit. The
court found that defendants had "presented competent evidence at trial" that plaintiff had caused
damage to their well pump, that defendants had incurred expenses repairing the premises after
plaintiff moved out, and that defendants' failure to comply with the 14-day statutory mandate for
the return of a security deposit had been "innocent."
On appeal, plaintiff requests this court to strike the Justice Court's finding that defendants
acted "innocently" in failing to timely return his security deposit, and, on that basis, to determine
that he is entitled to an award of punitive damages. Separately, plaintiff requests this court to
strike the Justice Court's finding that defendants presented competent evidence of the damages
plaintiff allegedly caused.
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" (UJCA 1807; see UJCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000];
Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).
General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (e) provides that a landlord who fails to provide
a tenant with an itemized statement indicating the basis for retaining any portion of a security
deposit within 14 days after the tenant has vacated the premises forfeits the right to retain any
portion of the deposit. It was pursuant to this provision that the Justice Court awarded plaintiff